Filed 7/20/23 P. v. Martinez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERNESTO C. MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D080816

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD275948)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. 

Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

Ernesto C. Martinez entered into a plea agreement, in which he 

pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and

admitted he personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, 

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

subd. (c)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and the 

parties stipulated to an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life in prison. 

Prior to sentencing, Martinez advised the court he wanted to withdraw 

his guilty plea and proceed to trial under section 1018. Martinez claimed the 

plea was a result of ignorance and mistake and that he did not understand 

due to lack of an interpreter at crucial times. 

The court relieved appointed counsel and appointed the alternate 

public defender to represent Martinez in his challenge to his guilty plea and 

sentencing. Thereafter, a motion for new trial was filed and the court held an 

evidentiary hearing. 

The court denied the motion to set aside the plea and sentenced 

Martinez as indicated above.

Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of 

probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 

Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Martinez the opportunity 

to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION2

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in 

its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 

(Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in 

evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred 

2 The facts of the offense are not important to the resolution of the 

possible issues on this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.
3

in finding Martinez had not shown good cause to set aside the guilty plea 

considering the claim of denial of an interpreter at critical stages and his 

history of brain damage from Martinez’s boxing career.

We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and 

Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Martinez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

RUBIN, J.