Filed 5/17/24 P. v. Tolentinolopez CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW TOLENTINOLOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

B330649

Los Angeles County 

Superior Court No. 

BA507188

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Robert C. Vanderet, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. 
2

Four victims were robbed at gunpoint. A February 2023 

information charged Defendant Andrew Tolentinolopez and 

others with four counts of second degree robbery—felonies 

designated serious and violent. The information listed 

aggravating circumstances of the offenses. 

In April 2023, Defendant pleaded no contest to one robbery 

count, along with two codefendants. The prosecutor advised him 

of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. 

Defendant waived these rights and entered the plea. His trial 

counsel joined and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based 

on the police reports and preliminary hearing transcript. 

The trial court accepted Defendant’s plea and dismissed the 

remaining counts. The court sentenced him to the agreed term of 

two years in state prison, the low term on the one robbery count. 

The court also imposed fines and fees totaling $370, excluding a 

stayed parole revocation restitution fine. 

Defense counsel argued her client was indigent and asked 

the court to stay or not impose the fines and fees. When the court 

declined, counsel requested a certificate of probable cause to file 

an appeal. The court again declined, and counsel said she would 

appeal anyway. 

Defendant’s notice of appeal specified his appeal was based 

on the sentence or other matters postdating his plea that did not 

affect its validity. 

In November 2023, appointed appellate counsel submitted 

to the trial court an informal motion to vacate or stay the fines 

and fees. The motion clarified that the sole issue on appeal was 

the imposition of fines and fees despite Defendant’s inability to 

pay, which does not require a certificate of probable cause. 
3

In January 2024, the trial court granted the motion and 

directed the clerk to prepare an amended Abstract of Judgment. 

Defendant’s appellate counsel then filed an opening brief 

raising no issues and asking this court to review the record 

independently under Wende. Counsel also advised Defendant of 

his right to file a supplemental brief for us to consider. 

Defendant did not file a response.

 We have examined the entire appellate record. We 

commend Defendant’s counsel for efficiently resolving the fees 

issue at the trial court. We are satisfied counsel fully complied 

with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

VIRAMONTES, J.