Filed 4/25/16 P. v. Silva 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

DEXTER SILVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B263388

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA431436)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Douglas W. Sortino, Judge. Affirmed.

Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Dexter Silva pled no contest to one 

count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1and was sentenced in 

accordance with the agreement to a term of nine years. We have conducted an 

independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and conclude that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, 

we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

In October 2014, appellant and another person entered a parking garage of 

an apartment building, rummaged through several vehicles, removed property, and 

stole a bicycle. 

On December 10, 2014, appellant was charged by information with one 

count of first degree residential burglary. The information further alleged that 

appellant had served ten prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had been 

convicted of one strike under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 

1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). 

Appellant requested substitution of counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. After conducting an inquiry into the reasons for appellant’s 

request, the trial court denied the motion. 

On February 5, 2015, appellant pled no contest to one count of first degree 

residential burglary. He admitted that he had one prior strike and one prior serious 

felony. He was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to the low term of two 

 

1

Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Because no preliminary hearing had occurred before appellant entered into the 

plea agreement, the facts are based on the probation report contained in the record.
3

years, doubled to four years for his prior strike, plus five years for his serious 

felony, for a total of nine years. He received 85 days actual custody credit and 84 

days good time/work time credit for a total of 169 days total custody credit.3

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, indicating that his appeal was 

based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the 

validity of the plea. 

DISCUSSION

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an 

opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the 

holding of Wende. We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to 

submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has 

been received to date.

A certificate of probable cause is required for an appeal challenging the 

validity of a plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 

356, 359.) Because appellant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, he is 

precluded from challenging the validity of his plea and from challenging the 

validity of his sentence, which was part of his negotiated plea. (People v. Panizzon

(1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76-78 (Panizzon).)

“Notwithstanding the broad language of section 1237.5, it is settled that two 

types of issues may be raised in a guilty or nolo contendere plea appeal without 

issuance of a certificate: (1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is 

provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) issues regarding 

proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree 

 

3

The trial court subsequently granted appellant’s motion to correct the number of 

days to 172 days credit and issued an amended abstract of judgment.
4

of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. [Citations.]” (Panizzon, supra, 13 

Cal.4th at pp. 74-75.) Appellant has not raised either type of issue.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that there are no 

arguable issues on appeal. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442; see also 

Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279 [upholding the Wende procedure].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

COLLINS, J.