Filed 8/14/20 P. v. Sauceda CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN ADOLFO SAUCEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B297975

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA108410)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Richard R. Romero, Judge. Affirmed.

Janet Uson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Juan Sauceda appeals from a judgment entered after a 

plea agreement. Our review is under People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.

According to the preliminary hearing transcript, on 

January 22, 2018, two men confronted the victim outside a bar. 

One of the men called the victim a “nigger” and said, “I will shoot 

you” while pointing a gun at him. The victim walked away but 

the man with a gun followed him. An investigating police officer 

was able to identify Sauceda as the man with a gun from video 

surveillance. 

Just over a week later, two other police officers were 

looking for a woman who was related to Sauceda. The officers 

were in an unmarked vehicle and wearing civilian clothing when 

they noticed Sauceda on a bicycle who stared intently at them. 

He pointed a gun at them, so the officers drove away. About a 

minute later, the officers saw Sauceda at a gas station outside 

cashier window. Sauceda pointed a gun at the officers’ vehicle. 

By this time, the officers had removed sweatshirts they had been 

wearing to reveal their police tactical vests. When the officers got 

out of their vehicle, Sauceda ran but was immediately detained. 

The gun was recovered containing six rounds. 

An information charged Sauceda with five counts of assault 

with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b)). The 

information also alleged personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5). 

On March 27, 2019, Sauceda pleaded no contest to one count of 

assault with a semiautomatic firearm and to the personal gun 

use allegation. The trial court sentenced Sauceda to 13 years in 

prison, comprised of the high term of nine years on one count plus 

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

four years for the gun allegation. The trial court also imposed a 

$390 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations 

assessment (§ 1465.86), and a $30 court facility assessment (Gov. 

Code, § 70373). 

After entering into his plea, Sauceda requested a certificate 

of probable cause. The trial court denied the request. Sauceda 

appealed. After review of the record, Sauceda’s court-appointed 

counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues, asking this 

court to conduct an independent review of the record, under 

People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. We advised 

Sauceda that he could submit by brief or letter any contentions or 

argument he wished this court to consider. He did not submit a 

brief.

A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no 

contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause may only 

challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise 

grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the 

plea’s validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) 

A certificate of probable cause is required “when a defendant 

claims that a plea was induced by misrepresentations of a 

fundamental nature” or claims he was mentally incompetent to 

enter the plea. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.) A 

certificate of probable cause is also required when the defendant 

claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to the 

plea. (People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245.)

With respect to sentencing or postplea issues that do not in 

substance challenge the validity of the plea itself, we have 

examined the record and are satisfied no arguable issues exist 

and Sauceda’s attorney has fully complied with the 
4

responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 

126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

DHANIDINA, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.