Filed 4/25/23 P. v. Medina 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JOSE CRUZ MEDINA,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B320319

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA121888)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Jose Cruz Medina appeals after pleading guilty 

to two sex offenses. His counsel filed an opening brief that raised 

no issues and requested independent review of the record 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We 

have independently examined the entire record and conclude no 

arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An information filed March 4, 2020 charged appellant with

one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 

years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); count 1)1, 

and two counts of lewd act upon a child under age 14 (§ 288, 

subd. (a); counts 2 and 3). The information further alleged a 

multiple victim enhancement on counts 2 and 3 

(§ 667.61, subds. (a), (e)). 

On May 12, 2021 appellant and the prosecution entered 

into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the 

prosecution amended the information to add one count of 

continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (§ 288.5, 

subd. (a); count 4). Appellant pled guilty to count 3 and the 

newly added count 4, and the prosecution dismissed the 

remaining charges and allegations. The parties agreed that 

appellant would be sentenced to the midterm of 12 years on count 

4 and a consecutive term of two years (one-third the midterm) on 

count 3. 

Prior to sentencing, appellant’s counsel was relieved from 

representing him. Appellant’s new counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw his plea based on previous counsel’s alleged provision 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated. 
3

of ineffective assistance. The prosecution opposed the motion. 

The court denied the motion after a hearing. 

The court sentenced appellant in accordance with the plea 

agreement: 12 years on count 4 and two years consecutive on 

count 3. The court awarded appellant 1,136 days of custody 

credit. It imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a 

$60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and an 

$80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8). It also imposed and 

stayed a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45). The 

court imposed registration requirements (§ 290) and ordered 

appellant to provide a DNA sample (§ 296) and relinquish all 

firearms (§ 29810). 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. 

He checked the box indicating the appeal was based on the 

sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. He did not 

request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable 

cause. 

DISCUSSION 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no arguable issues and 

requesting this court conduct an independent review of the 

record. We notified appellant that he had 30 days to file a 

supplemental brief raising any issues or contentions he wished 

this court to consider. To date, we have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and discern no 

arguable issues. By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the 

Wende procedure and our review of the record, appellant has 

received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment. 

(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
4

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, ACTING, P.J.

DAUM, J.

 Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by 

the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.