Filed 2/18/15 P. v. Ventura CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OSCAR VENTURA,

Defendant and Appellant. B256863

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA091120)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Darrell S. Mavis, Judge. Affirmed. Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Defendant Oscar Ventura pl eaded no contest to five counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). 1 He agreed to and received a sentence of 16 years in state prison, consis ting of the upper term of 8 years on count 1 and consec utive one-third midterm senten ces of 2 years on each of counts 2 through 5. Defendant timely appealed. We affirm.

BACKGROUND On October 2, 2013, defendant was charge d with three counts of violating Penal Code, section 288, subdivision (a). Count 1 alleged that on or about July 21, 2013,

defendant committed a lewd and lascivious act upon Perla A., a child und er the age of 14. Count 2 alleged that on or about July 21, 2013, defendant co mmitted a lewd and lascivious act upon Ruby A., a child under the age of 14. Count 3 alleged that defendant committed a second lewd and lascivious act upo n Ruby A. on or about July 23, 2013. Through counsel and with the aid of a Spanish interpreter, de fendant waived his speedy preliminary hearing righ ts and statutory time at multip le court appearances. On March 14, 2014, defendant and the People advi sed the trial court that they wished to resolve the case prior to the pr eliminary hearing. Based on discovery they had obtained, the People moved to amend the felony complaint to add an additional two counts of lewd

and lascivious conduct with Perla A. Count 4 alleged conduct occurring January 1, 2013, through April 30, 2013. Count 5 alleged co nduct occurring May 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. The People explaine d that they added these coun ts to support their offered sentence of 16 years: an upper term of 8 years on Count 1 and consecutive one-third midterm sentences of 2 years on each of counts 2 through 5. Defendant said he

understood the calculation. Defe ndant asked if the offer coul d be lowered to 10 or 12 years, but agreed to the 16-y ear sentence when the People d eclined to lower the offer.

1 All further statutory references are to th e Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 Defendant was advised of and indicated his understandi ng of the rights he would be giving up by pleading no contest. He a ffirmatively waived his rights to a preliminary hearing and a trial. The People explained th e consequences of the plea, including the strikes defendant would receive, the regist ration requirements th at would be imposed upon him, the prohibition on the possession of firearms, and the pote ntial effects of the plea on immigration and na turalization issues. Defendant acknowledged the consequences and affirmed that he was ente ring the plea freely and voluntarily. The trial

court found that all of the waivers were know ingly, understandingly, and explicitly made. Defendant pleaded no contest to all five charged counts, which the People

memorialized in an amended felony complaint on the day of sentencing. Defendant’s privately retained counsel joined in the waivers, concurred in the plea, and stipulated to a

factual basis as outlined in th e police report, the complaint, and all of the discovery he had been provided. On April 11, 2014, th e trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 16 years in state prison. Defendant received 197 days of actual credit and 29 days of good time/local conduct credit for a total of 226 days. The court imposed a restitu tion fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)), im posed and stayed a parole revoca tion restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.45), and assessed court security fees of $40 per count ($200 to tal) (§ 1465.8) and conviction fees of $30 per co unt ($150 total) (Gov. Code , § 70373). The court also ordered defendant to provide DNA and handprint samples pur suant to section 296, and ordered him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. The court accurately documented its oral pronouncements in the abstract of judgment. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea as well as the validity of the plea. He sought a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied on June 17, 2014. Because defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, this appeal is nece ssarily limited to noncertificate issues, namely th ose relating to the validity of a search and seizure, for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m), or to proceedings4 held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. ( People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 677-678; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)

DISCUSSION After reviewing the record, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On September 17, 2014, we directed ap pointed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant and notified him of his right to respond within 30 days. We received no response.

We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that no argu able issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’ s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278- 279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.