Court Opinion

ID: 9931320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:04:12.512414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:08.159635
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/8/24 P. v. Gutierrez CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B330251

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. VA155499)
         v.

NICHOLAS DANDRE
GUTIERREZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the
County of Los Angeles, Joseph R. Porras, Judge. Affirmed.
      John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearances for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                             ____________________________

      On December 14, 2022, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant
Nicholas Gutierrez with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)1) and
alleging that the murder was willful, deliberate, and
premeditated within the meaning of section 189, subdivision (a)
and that, in the commission of the offense, he personally used a
firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a).
      On March 1, 2023, defendant, pursuant to the terms of a
plea agreement, pleaded no contest to murder and admitted that
the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated and that he
personally used a firearm in the commission of his offense
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Following the plea colloquy, the trial court
found that defendant had expressly, knowingly, understandingly,
and intelligently waived his constitutional rights and that his
plea and admissions were freely and voluntarily made with an
understanding of the nature and consequences of the plea. The
court also found there was a factual basis for the plea.
      On March 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant,
consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, to a term of 25
years to life on the murder charge, with a consecutive 10-year
enhancement pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a), for an
aggregate term of 35 years to life. The court also imposed certain
fees and assessments.
      On April 25, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
      We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
On October 3, 2023, counsel filed an opening brief in which
counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that
we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On October 4, 2023, we advised
defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
arguable issues and he had 30 days within which to
independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or
arguments that he wished for us to consider. Defendant did not
file a supplemental brief.
       We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that
defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with
his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                                  3