Filed 2/1/24 P. v. Pacheco CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LORENZO ALBERTO PACHECO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B331142

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA084078)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________
2

A felony complaint, filed on October 18, 2022, charged 

Lorenzo Alberto Pacheco with one count of carjacking (Pen. 

Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)). The complaint further alleged that in 

committing the offense, Pacheco engaged in violent conduct that 

indicates a serious danger to society within the meaning of 

California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1). The complaint also 

alleged that Pacheco had a prior serious and/or violent felony 

conviction—a 2016 robbery (§ 212.5)—within the meaning of the 

“Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) & 1170.12).

At a pretrial hearing on March 15, 2023, the trial court 

(Judge Shannon Knight) informed Pacheco that his “maximum 

exposure” on the carjacking offense, as pleaded, was 18 years in 

prison (the upper term of nine years, doubled to 18 years because 

of the prior strike). The court added that his exposure could 

increase to 23 years if the prosecution were to allege the prior 

robbery as a serious felony within the meaning of the five-year 

serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a).

The prosecution offered Pacheco a plea deal under which he 

would admit the prior strike and plead guilty or no contest to a 

count of grand theft of an automobile (§ 487, subd. (d)(1))—a

nonserious, nonviolent, nonstrike felony offense—and he would 

be sentenced to two years and eight months in prison (the low 

term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior 

strike). Pacheco indicated he wanted to discuss the proposed plea 

deal with his counsel and respond to the offer on the next court 

date. The prosecutor agreed to hold the deal open until then.

At a hearing on April 6, 2023, the trial court (Judge 

Knight) granted the prosecution’s motion to amend the felony 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

complaint by interlineation to add count 2, a violation of section 

487, subdivision (d)(1), grand theft of an automobile, and to allege 

the prior strike (the 2016 robbery conviction) as to count 2. 

Pacheco waived a preliminary hearing, waived his constitutional 

rights, pleaded no contest to count 2, and admitted the prior 

strike; and the court accepted the plea. Pacheco agreed to be 

sentenced on May 10, 2023, before Judge Robert G. Chu.

At the outset of the sentencing hearing on May 10, 2023, 

defense counsel informed the trial court (Judge Chu) that 

Pacheco told him he was “not happy with his deal” and “want[ed] 

to take his deal back.” Defense counsel stated “there’s no legal 

basis” for a motion to withdraw the plea. Pacheco told the court 

he believed his counsel could have “fought” for a better deal, one

without admission of the prior strike. Defense counsel reviewed 

with the court Pacheco’s exposure on the carjacking offense as 

pleaded (18 years), and the agreed-upon sentence under the plea 

agreement (two years and eight months for grand theft of an 

automobile). The court found “no legal basis” that would allow 

Pacheco to withdraw his plea. 

Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court 

(Judge Chu) dismissed count 1 (carjacking) and sentenced 

Pacheco on count 2 (grand theft of an automobile) to two years 

and eight months in prison (the low term of 16 months, doubled 

to 32 months because of the prior strike). 

On June 1, 2023, Pacheco, as a self-represented litigant, 

filed a notice of appeal. Therein, he stated that he was appealing 

from “the plea, sentencing and all legal proceedings imposed” in 

this matter. He did not file a written statement pursuant to 

section 1237.5, subdivision (a), “showing reasonable

constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the 
4

legality of the proceedings,” and the trial court did not issue a 

certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent Pacheco in this appeal. 

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief 

raising no issues and asking this court to review the record 

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

(Wende). On November 22, 2023, we sent a letter to Pacheco and 

his appointed counsel, advising Pacheco that within 30 days he 

could personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us 

to consider, and directing counsel to send the record and opening 

brief to Pacheco immediately. Pacheco has not filed a 

supplemental brief.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 

Pacheco’s counsel has complied with his responsibilities and 

there are no arguable issues to be briefed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

Pacheco’s no contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of 

probable cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to 

“[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the 

plea’s validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence 

under Penal Code section 1538.5.”2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.304(b); see § 1237.5.) The record does not demonstrate the 

existence of any such issue.

We note that the abstract of judgment, filed on May 19, 

2023, incorrectly states that Pacheco was convicted in this case of 

carjacking in violation of section 215, subdivision (a). As set forth 

above, Pacheco was convicted in this case of grand theft of an 

automobile in violation of section 487, subdivision (d)(1). We 

2 Pacheco did not move to suppress evidence.
5

order the trial court to correct this clerical error if it has not done 

so already.

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to correct the May 19, 2023 

abstract of judgment to reflect that Pacheco was convicted of 

grand theft of an automobile under section 487, subdivision (d)(1)

(not carjacking under section 215, subdivision (a)). As so 

modified, the judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior

court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and 

to forward it to the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.