Filed 6/1/15 P. v. Galindo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

EDUARDO GAL INDO,

Defendant and Appellant. B260285

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA422357)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David R.

Fields, Judge. Affirmed.

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

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *2

A criminal defendant who does not obtain a certificate of probable cause may

challenge a plea based on the denial of a motion to suppress or bas ed on grounds that

arose after the entry of the plea. ( Pen. Code

, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, r ule

8.304 (b) (4) ; People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1187 .) Here defendant

Eduardo Galindo seeks to undo his no contest plea but did not obtain a cer tificate of

probable cause . H is counsel filed a b rief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3 d

436 identifying no issue. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

At the preliminary hear ing, there was evidence that on March 10, 2014, defendant

entered a Burger King and was not able to p urchase food using food stamps. Defendant

became upset, threatened to harm the pregnant restaurant clerk’s unborn child

, and

threatened to kill everyone in the restaurant

.
Defendant was charged with criminal threats (Pen. Code

, § 422, s ubd. (a)) and

pled no contest. Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences

of his plea

, and he indicated that he understood. Defendant stated that he was pleading

no contest freely and voluntarily. Defendant’s counsel joined in his waiver. The trial

court found that defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was voluntary, knowingly

and intelligen t ly made. 1

Subseq u ently defendant sought to withdraw his plea on the ground that he did not

knowingly and intelligently waive his right t o a jury trial. Defendant expressed concern

that the prosecutor interviewed a potential witness after the witness testified at an

Evidence Code section 402 h earing. Defense counsel represented that defendant was

aware of the interview prior t o pleading no contest. The court denied defendant’s motion

to withdraw his plea , finding no good cause. The court reiterate d that defendant’s no

cont est plea was voluntarily made.

1 Defendant also pled guilty to having served seven prior prison terms, but the court
subsequently c oncluded that they did not qualify

.3

Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause for appeal on the gro und that

he entered the plea because the prosecutor committed misconduct by interviewing a

defense witness and “persuading the defense witness to change his testimony at trial in a

way that is detrimental to th e defense theory of the case.” The court deni ed the requested

certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel identified no issues. We

advised defendant that he had 30 days to submit a letter identifying any contentions, and

defendant did not file a l etter. We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no

arguable issue exists, and defendant’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities.

( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, 441

- 443; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40

Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124; Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279

- 284.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.