Filed 8/16/23 P. v. Smith CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONNELL SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B328488

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA079754, 

 BR055479)

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Donnell Smith (defendant) 

appeals from the judgment of conviction following his plea of no 

contest. After his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues, 

we directed counsel to send defendant the record of appeal and a 

copy of counsel’s brief. Defendant then had leave to file, within 

30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument 

he might wish us to consider. That time has passed, and 
2

defendant submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the 

entire record and, finding no arguable issues, we affirm the 

judgment.

Defendant was charged on August 4, 2021, with felony 

robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.1 The district 

attorney alleged that defendant unlawfully took, by force and 

fear, personal property from Mohamed N. on August 16, 2020. 

The complaint was later amended to add a count for battery in 

violation of section 242.

On the date set for trial, defendant entered a plea of no 

contest to the battery charge. The court, pursuant to the plea

agreement, ordered imposition of sentence suspended and

defendant was placed on summary probation for 12 months. As 

terms and conditions of probation defendant was ordered to serve 

41 days in county jail less credit of 41 days, ordered to pay 

restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subd. (f), and ordered to 

stay at least 400 yards from Nagi’s Electronics in Palmdale.

Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, but 

filed a timely notice of appeal of his conviction. Upon receipt of 

his notice of appeal, this court entered an order limiting the 

appeal to issues that do not require a certificate of probable 

cause. Section 1237.5 states that “ ‘[n]o appeal shall be taken by 

the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty 

or nolo contendere . . .’ in the absence of a certificate of probable 

cause.” (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 681.) The sole 

exception to this requirement applies when the appeal is taken 

“ . . . solely on noncertificate grounds, which go to postplea 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, 

unless otherwise indicated.
3

matters not challenging his plea's validity and/or matters 

involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested

pursuant to section 1538.5.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 

1084, 1096.)

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 

defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his 

responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude 

defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our review of the record, received an adequate and 

effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in 

this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. 

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.