1

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Avila CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADRIAN AVILA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167257

 (Del Norte County

 Super. Ct. Nos. CRPB 2022-5089,

 CRPB 2022-5091)

Appellant Adrian Avila, Jr. (appellant) appeals from the judgment 

entered following his no contest pleas to possession of a stabbing instrument 

by a prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a))1 and indecent exposure with a 

prior conviction for the same (§ 314). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue 

on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to 

determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have 

reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant is an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison. In July 2022, in 

case number CRPB 2022-5089, the Del Norte County District Attorney filed a 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

complaint charging appellant with three separate violations of section 314, 

indecent exposure. As to each of the three counts, the complaint alleged that 

appellant was convicted of the same offense in 2008. The complaint also

alleged appellant had three prior strike convictions.

In August 2022, in case number CRPB 2022-5091, the Del Norte 

County District Attorney filed an amended complaint charging appellant 

with two violations of section 4502, subdivision (a), possession of a stabbing 

instrument by a prisoner. The complaint also alleged appellant had three 

prior strike convictions.

In October 2022, appellant entered into a plea agreement resolving 

both cases. He agreed to plead guilty to one of the weapon possession counts 

in case number CRPB 2022-5091, with a midterm sentence of three years to 

be served consecutive to his current prison term. In case number CRPB 

2022-5089, he agreed to plead no contest to one of the indecent exposure 

counts, with a concurrent two-year sentence. All remaining charges and the 

strike allegations would be dismissed. Appellant completed a declaration 

memorializing the agreement and acknowledging the various rights he would 

give up by entering the plea.

At a hearing, appellant pled no contest to the two charges (rather than 

guilty) after acknowledging his constitutional rights and the potential 

consequences of his plea. Appellant also admitted he was previously 

convicted of indecent exposure. He affirmed he had not “taken any drugs or 

medicine or anything that would interfere with [his] ability to understand the 

proceedings.” The prosecutor explained that the weapons possession charge 

was based on a correctional officer’s discovery of an “inmate-manufactured 

weapon” on appellant’s person and that the indecent exposure charge was 

based on an incident during which appellant masturbated in front of a female 
3

correctional officer. The trial court found appellant had “freely, voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights, understands the nature of the 

charges, and possible consequences, and that there is a factual basis for . . . 

accepting the plea.”

At the outset of the December 2022 sentencing hearing, defense counsel 

told the court that appellant “tentatively wanted to withdraw his plea.” But 

appellant changed his mind upon learning the prosecutor had stated she 

would not bring charges for other “pending referrals” if appellant did not 

withdraw his plea.

The trial court sentenced appellant to a three-year term for the weapon 

possession and a two-year concurrent term for the indecent exposure charge.

Based on a finding of inability to pay, the court did not impose any fines or 

fees other than a section 1202.45 parole revocation fine.

On February 6, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal, indicating he 

was challenging the validity of his plea. He requested a certificate of 

probable cause, stating through counsel, “I hope you can assist me in 

withdrawing my plea on the P.C. 314 case since there was never any evidence 

and that case doesn’t even meet the criteria for a P.C. 314.” The trial court 

denied the request.

On February 16, 2023, appellant filed an “amended” notice of appeal. 

He requested a certificate of probable cause, stating, “I was just diagnosed 

with some mental health issues at the time of my no-contest plea and was 

given a higher level of care (EOP) enhanced out patient status. So my mind 

frame was unstable at the time of the no-contest plea. I am now on 

medication to keep me stable. I want to withdraw my no-contest plea based 

on the aforementioned.” The request was denied.
4

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s guilty plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us. 

Because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited 

to “postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the 

validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)

We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable 

appellate issues. We do not consider claims based on appellant’s assertions 

about the validity of his plea in his notice of appeal because he was denied a 

certificate of probable cause. Although appellant “tentatively” expressed 

interest in moving to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, he ultimately 

decided not to do so. The sentence imposed by the trial court was in 

accordance with the plea agreement.

Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental 

brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. 

(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a 

supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
5

SIMONS, J.

We concur. 

JACKSON, P. J.

BURNS, J. 

(A167257)