Court Opinion

ID: 9899456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 19:03:46.26536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:30.557425
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/16/23 P. v. Andino CA2/4
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                           B327580

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. NA110517)
           v.

 ISAIAH ANDINO,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Daniel J. Lowenthal, Judge. Affirmed.
         Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and
Isaiah Andino, pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Defendant Isaiah Andino appeals from the judgment of conviction
following his plea of no contest. He was charged with five counts of forcible
oral copulation (Pen. Code,1 § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); counts 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12),
ten counts of kidnapping to commit another crime (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); counts
2, 7, 10, and 15 through 21), five counts of second degree robbery (§ 211;
counts 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14), and one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2);
count 13). As to all counts, it was alleged that defendant personally used a
firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). As to counts 12, 13, 14, 20, and 21, it was
alleged defendant had been convicted of a serious or violent felony (§§ 667,
subd. (d); 1170.12, subd. (b)). As to counts 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13, it was further
alleged that defendant kidnapped the victims by movement which
substantially increased the risk of harm to the victims over and above that
necessarily inherent in the underlying offense (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(2)). As to
the same counts, two circumstances in aggravation were alleged:
(1) defendant had engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger
to society; and (2) defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained
petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous or of increasing
seriousness. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1)-(2).)
      Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled no contest to five counts of
forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); counts 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12).
Defendant admitted a prior strike allegation for purposes of imposing the
high term on counts 1 and 4, but not for the purpose of doubling his sentence.
Defendant also admitted to the circumstances in aggravation (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 4.421(b)(1) and (2)) as to counts 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12. In exchange, he

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

                                         2
was sentenced to 28 years in state prison and the remaining counts were
dismissed.
        After reviewing the record, defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed an
opening brief requesting that this court independently review the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On August 9,
2023, we informed defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On August
15, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence in count 1 and requested this court “to look into
the Long Beach police misconduct in the way they handled the evidence in
this case.”
        We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues
exist. With respect to defendant’s supplemental brief, we note that his no
contest plea constituted an admission of every element of the offense and
precludes any challenge to the evidence, including its sufficiency or
admissibility, on appeal. (See People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895–
896; People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 69–71; People v. Turner
(1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 126.) We also reject defendant’s contention that
the police engaged in misconduct as he offers no legal basis, nor can we find
any, for his claim of error. (In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th
659, 690, fn. 18 [failure to develop an argument or cite any authority in
support of a contention results in the forfeiture of the issue on appeal].)
        Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective
appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v.
Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112–
113.)

                                        3
                       DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                ZUKIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

CURREY, P. J.

MORI, J.

                            4