Filed 3/17/14 P. v. Ramos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Respon dent,

v.

EVERARDO RAMOS

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 250670

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KA100248 )

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

Olson , Judge. Dismissed

.

California Appella te Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and

Richard B. Lennon , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant Everardo Ramos appeals from the judgment entered foll owing his no

contest plea to committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen.

Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).) 1 We dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 19, 2013, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed an

in formation charging defendant with committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under

the age of 14 and with committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. (§ 288,

subd s . (a) , (b)(1)

. )

On July 30, 2013, defendant entered a no contest plea to a v iolation of section 288,

subdivision (b)(1)

, pursuant to an agreement that he would receive eight years in prison.

Upon entering the plea, he was immediately sentence d to eight years

. This appeal

followed.

On August 29, 2013, this court advised defend ant by letter that his notice of appeal

did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) (rule 8.304(b)) and section

1237.5. Because he had entered a no contest plea, defendant was required to obtain a

certificate of probable cause from the tr ial court because he did not state that his appeal

was based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the entry of his plea. He

was informed that his appeal was subject to dismissal.

On September 11, 2013, an attorney for defendant filed an amended notice of

appeal. The box on the form which states that the appeal “ is based on the sentence or

other matters occurr ing after the plea ” was checked.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 DISCUSSION

Defendant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief that raised no issues

and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On December 9, 2013, this court sent a letter to defendant

informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him he had 30

d ays to file a supplemental brief raising any issues that he wished for us to consider. To

date, we have received no response.

As set forth above, because he entered a no contest plea, defendant was required to

obtain a certificate of probable cause. His failure to do so bars this court from proceeding

to the merits of the appea l with respect to the validity of the plea . ( People v. Mendez

(1999) 19 Cal .4th 1084, 1099.) However, we may consider issues unrelated to the

validity of the plea under r ule 8.30 4(b)(4) , which provides that an appellant need not

obtain a certificate of probable cause if the notice of appeal states the appeal is based on

the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 or grounds that arose

after entry of the plea a nd do not affect the plea’s validity. If a notice of appeal complies

with rule 8.304(b)(4) , we are nonetheless barred from addressing certificate issues that

attack the validity of the plea. ( Ibid. )

We have independently reviewed the record. We are sat isfied there are no

arguable issues. More specifically, there is no basis to challenge the judgment based on

matters that occurred after the entry of the plea

, and defendant identified no such issues. 2

As a result, defendant’s failure to obtain a certifi cate of probable cause and raise any

issue that would make this appeal operative pursuant to r ule 8.304(b)(4) compels us to

dismiss the appeal.

2 Defendant did not file a section 1538.5 motion seeking to suppress evidence.4 DIS POSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, J. *

We concur:

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

MANELLA, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.