Filed 7/15/15 P. v. Carrillo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADAM VINCENT CARRILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

F069110

(Super. Ct. No. F13912021)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David A. 

Gottlieb, Judge.

William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Gomes, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
2.

Adam Vincent Carrillo pled no contest to felony attempting to dissuade a witness 

from prosecuting a crime and misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. 

Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating 

he failed to identify any arguable issues on appeal. By letter dated July 10, 2014, we 

invited Carrillo to identify any grounds he wished this court to address in this appeal. 

Carrillo did not respond to our letter. 

Our independent review of the record did not discover any arguable issues in this 

case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The first amended complaint charged Carrillo with three felonies, two counts of 

inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and one count 

of attempting to dissuade a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). A 

plea agreement was reached wherein Carrillo agreed to plead no contest to one 

misdemeanor count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and to the felony count of 

dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to 

dismiss the remaining count and agreed to not seek a prison commitment. 

Carrillo completed the “Felony Advisement, Waiver of Rights, and Plea Form.” 

He thereby was informed of his trial rights, the consequences of the plea, including the 

fact the felony would be a strike conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (b) 

through (i), and that he faced a maximum sentence of three years in prison. Carrillo also 

waived his trial rights in the plea form. 

The trial court confirmed Carrillo (1) wanted to accept the plea agreement, (2) had 

had ample time to discuss the case with his attorney, and (3) initialed and signed the plea 

form. The trial court advised Carrillo (1) he faced possible deportation if he was not a 

 

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

United States citizen, (2) this plea would constitute a violation of parole or probation if he 

was on parole or probation, (3) the maximum sentence he faced was three years, (4) the 

trial court would order restitution, and (5) the plea would constitute a strike conviction. 

Carrillo confirmed he understood each of these possible consequences to his plea. The 

trial court also confirmed Carrillo understood and waived his trial rights. Carrillo then 

pled no contest to the agreed-upon charges and he was sentenced pursuant to the terms of 

the plea agreement. 

Carrillo filed a notice of appeal that included a request for a certificate of probable 

cause. The request does not identify any specific issues that deserve appellate review. 

Instead, the request states Carrillo intends to “raise sentencing issues.” However, the 

request states Carrillo is unable to identify any issues without the assistance of appellate 

counsel. 

Because Carrillo interpreted case law as requiring a certificate of probable cause to 

address at least some sentencing issues, “[Carrillo] requests that a certificate of probable 

cause be issued, in the event that the Court of Appeal construes any claims of sentencing 

error that his appellate counsel is able to identify as a challenge to the validity of 

[Carrillo’s] plea that requires a certificate of probable cause. It is also possible that, once 

[Carrillo] has been provided an appellate attorney, that attorney might identify potential 

issues as to the effectiveness of the representation [Carrillo] received in entering his 

plea.” 

In other words, the request asked the trial court to issue a certificate of probable 

cause just in case an appellate attorney might be able to identify an arguable issue on 

appeal. Inexplicably, the trial court granted the request and issued a certificate of 

probable cause. 
4.

DISCUSSION

As stated above, appellate counsel did not identify any arguable issues in this case. 

Our review of this clear and very brief record leaves us in agreement with appellate 

counsel. 

Carrillo failed to identify any possible issue that was worthy of appellate review in 

his request. Nonetheless, the trial court granted the request. The trial court’s decision 

appears to us to be contrary to section 1237.5. 

Generally, section 1237.5 precludes an appeal from the judgment entered after a 

guilty plea unless the defendant applies for, and the trial court grants the defendant, a 

certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, the issues raised by 

the defendant are not reviewable. (People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1187.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.