1

Filed 9/25/24 P. v. Acosta CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL PHILIP ACOSTA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A169260

 

 (Humboldt County 

 Super. Ct. No. CR2001060A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Michael Philip Acosta, Jr. appeals from a judgment entered after he 

pled guilty — pursuant to a plea bargain — to maintaining a place for selling 

or using controlled substances and possession of methamphetamine, both 

misdemeanors. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11366, 11377, subd. (a); 

undesignated statutory references are to this code.) His appointed counsel 

filed a brief asking this court to review the record to determine whether there 

are arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We 

have found none and affirm. 

In 2020, after a search of Acosta, Jr.’s house yielded narcotics, the 

prosecution charged him with various offenses — maintaining a place for 

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. 

Admin., § 8.1.)
2

selling or using controlled substances (§ 11366, count one); possession for sale 

of heroin (§ 11351, count two); possession for sale of Alprazolam (§ 11375, 

subd. (b)(1), count three); possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a), 

count four); and knowing possession of a controlled substance without a

prescription (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4060, count five). 

At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate conducted an in camera 

hearing with the lead investigator outside of Acosta, Jr.’s presence. The 

prosecutor requested the hearing after Acosta, Jr.’s codefendant — his 

domestic partner — texted the investigator noting an increase in visitors at 

their home and handed the investigator a note indicating she wanted to be an 

informant. Eventually, the court unsealed the transcript of the hearing and 

ordered disclosure of the handwritten note and text messages. The record 

does not indicate whether the parties complied with the order. 

Acosta, Jr. moved to dismiss the information arguing, among other 

things, his exclusion from the in camera proceeding constituted a structural 

error, and the investigator fabricated testimony. Acosta, Jr. submitted a 

declaration by his codefendant, in which she denied sending any text 

messages or handwritten notes. Acosta, Jr. also sought to recuse the district 

attorney’s office. According to Acosta, Jr., a county supervisor with financial 

and regulatory influence over the district attorney’s office originally reported 

him to police. The county supervisor allegedly prioritized Acosta, Jr.’s arrest 

and prosecution so as to uproot him from his home in the supervisor’s 

neighborhood. Both motions were denied.

In September 2023, Acosta, Jr. entered a negotiated plea, resulting in 

the dismissal of all counts aside from counts one and four — maintaining a 

place for selling or using controlled substances and possession of 

methamphetamine, both misdemeanors. (§§ 11366, 11377, subd. (a).) 
3

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered probation for 

one year with various terms and conditions.

Acosta, Jr. filed a notice of appeal, checking the box indicating his 

appeal “challenges the validity of the plea or admission.” He also requested a 

certificate of probable cause, arguing his exclusion from the ex parte in

camera conference constituted a structural error, and the district attorney 

should have been recused. The trial court denied his request for issuance of a 

certificate of probable cause.

Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and notified Acosta, Jr. he had a 

right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. No supplemental brief was 

received. Following a judgment based on a guilty plea, a defendant must 

obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court to challenge the 

validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1); People v. Stubbs

(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245.) In the absence of that certificate, our 

review is limited to matters that arise after entry of the plea and do not affect 

the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have reviewed 

that portion of the record after entry of the plea pursuant to Wende and find 

no reasonably arguable appellate issue.

The judgment is affirmed.
4

_________________________

RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.

_________________________

PETROU, J.

A169260; People v. Acosta, Jr.