Court Opinion

ID: 9953746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 19:02:48.075975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:30.766029
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/24 P. v. Maya CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E082599

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWF2100236)

 JOSE MAYA,                                                              OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Henry M. Elias, Judge.

(Retired Judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art.

VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

         Savannah Montanez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       In July 2023, pursuant to a plea bargain, 22-year-old defendant and appellant Jose

Maya pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault (Pen. Code,1 § 269,

subd. (a)(3); count 1) and one count of forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B);

count 4), both offenses against a child under age 14. Defendant admitted as an

aggravating factor that the victim, his 11-year-old cousin, was particularly vulnerable.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3).) On the prosecutor’s motion, the trial court then

dismissed two other aggravated child sexual assault counts (§ 269, subd. (a)(1), (3)) and

one count of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). The court sentenced

defendant to the agreed, aggregate term of 27 years to life, the statutory maximum,

consisting of 15 years to life on count 1 and a consecutive, upper determinate term of

12 years on count 4. Defendant’s custody credits were 938 days actual time served and,

under section 2933.1, 140 days of conduct credit, for a total of 1,078 days. Defendant

appealed.

       On appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel’s review

of the record uncovered no arguable issues, including after consultation with another

attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106,

109 [threshold for “an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for success”]; see

also Redante v. Yockelson (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [counsel cannot contrive

arguable issues].) Counsel therefore filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
statement of facts, a statement of the case, and requesting that we independently review

the record. Without suggesting any defect or omission, counsel listed as possible issues

for review: (1) whether defendant was sentenced according to his plea bargain terms, and

(2) whether the court correctly calculated defendant’s custody credits. Defendant did not

respond to notice of his opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

       As relevant background information, we note only that defendant admitted as the

factual basis for his plea that “on or about February 7, 2021, [in] Riverside County, [he]

willfully and unlawfully committed an act of sodomy with a child under the age of 14”

and did so by “force, violence, duress, or menace.” He further admitted that “on or about

January 18th of 2021 in Riverside County, [he] willfully and unlawfully committed an act

of sexual penetration against a child under the age of 14, and [he] did so by means of

force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of injury . . . .”

       Having examined the record and completed our independent review (People v.

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106), we find no arguable issues.

                                       DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                Acting P. J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON
                            J.
FIELDS
                            J.

                                               3