Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Perez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANKIE PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B259886

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA419577)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. 

Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.

Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

Frankie Perez went to his former girlfriend’s house, stabbed the security door with 

a knife and threatened to kill her and her current boyfriend. Perez was arrested and 

charged in an information with two counts of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, 

subd. (a)) and one count of misdemeanor vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (a)). The 

information specially alleged Perez had suffered one prior serious or violent felony 

conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and the 

three strikes law (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had served one separate prison 

term for a felony (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). Represented by appointed counsel, Perez 

pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

The trial court denied Perez’s motion to set aside the information. (Pen. Code,

§ 995.) After Perez asserted his Sixth Amendment right under Faretta v. California

(1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562] to represent himself, the court 

relieved the public defender’s office as counsel of record. Several months later, Perez 

relinquished his self-representation status and the court granted his request for appointed 

counsel. The same day, the People amended the information to charge the vandalism 

count as a felony, and Perez entered a negotiated plea of no contest, orally and in writing, 

to that count.

Prior to entering his plea, Perez was advised of his constitutional rights and the 

nature and consequences of the plea, which Perez stated he understood. Defense counsel 

joined in the waivers of constitutional rights. The trial court found a factual basis for the 

plea and expressly found Perez’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and 

intelligent.

In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Perez to the low term 

of 16 months for felony vandalism and granted the People’s motion to dismiss the 

remaining counts and special allegations. The court awarded Perez presentence custody 

credit of 590 days and imposed statutory fees, fines and assessments.

Perez filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the “denial of his motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Penal Code section 995, the trial court[’]s rulings and findings and 

the sentence” in his case. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record.
3

We appointed counsel to represent Perez on appeal. After examination of the 

record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 5, 2015, 

we advised Perez he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or 

issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response.

A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without 

a certificate of probable cause can 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) To the extent Perez is seeking to 

challenge the validity of his plea and his sentence imposed as part of his plea, his appeal 

is inoperative. (Id., rule 8.304(b)(3).) With respect to other potential sentencing or postplea issues that do not in substance challenge the validity of the plea itself, we have 

examined the record and are satisfied Perez’s attorney has fully complied with the 

responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 

U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

STROBEL, J.*

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J. SEGAL, J.

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.