Court Opinion

ID: 9840615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:05:28.119777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:12.000898
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/19/23 P. v. Martinez CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                    B324493

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. NA116053)
           v.

 IRVING MARTINEZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County. Chet L. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
      Susan Wolk, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               _________________________________
       Irving Martinez appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment
order terminating his probation and sentencing him to a two-year
term in state prison. Martinez’s appellate counsel filed a brief
asking this court to proceed under People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
       In a felony complaint filed on January 5, 2021, the
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Martinez
with one count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code,1
§ 21310), and one count of vandalism causing $400 or more in
damage or destruction (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). At the time the
complaint was filed, Martinez had a number of prior convictions,
including two convictions for robbery.
       On April 27, 2021, Martinez pled no contest to the felony
vandalism count. The trial court accepted the plea and
suspended imposition of the sentence. The court placed Martinez
on formal probation for two years on the condition that he serve
180 days in the county jail. Martinez was awarded 34 days of
custody credit, consisting of 17 days of actual custody credit and
17 days of conduct credit. The remaining count was dismissed
pursuant to the plea.
       On July 22, 2022, Martinez failed to appear in court for a
possible violation of probation. The trial court revoked the
probation and issued a bench warrant for Martinez. On July 26,
2022, Martinez appeared in court, and the matter was set for a
probation violation hearing.
       At a hearing on August 17, 2022, Martinez admitted to a
violation of his probation. The trial court terminated Martinez’s

1     Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references
are to the Penal Code.

                                2
probation and sentenced him to the middle term of two years.
The court initially ordered that the sentence could be served in
county jail. However, at a hearing on August 30, 2022, the court
found that Martinez was ineligible for a county jail sentence
because he had suffered two prior strike convictions, and ordered
him to serve his two-year term in state prison. Martinez was
awarded a total of 233 days of custody credit, consisting of 207
days of actual custody credit and 26 days of conduct credit.
       On August 31, 2022, Martinez filed a notice of appeal from
the trial court’s August 17 and 30, 2022 orders based upon the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. On December
16, 2022, our Administrative Presiding Justice issued an order
providing that this appeal is limited to issues that do not require
a certificate of probable cause.
       We appointed counsel to represent Martinez on appeal.
After an examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an
opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court
conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On May 30, 2023, we advised Martinez
that he had 30 days in which to submit a supplemental brief
stating any grounds for appeal or arguments he wished for this
court to consider. Martinez did not submit a supplemental brief.
       A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of
no contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause may
only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or
assert grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not
affect the plea’s validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.304(b).) We have examined the record with respect to
sentencing or postplea issues that do not in substance challenge
the validity of the plea itself. Based on our examination of this

                                 3
record, we are satisfied Martinez’s attorney has fully complied
with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist.
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The postjudgment order terminating probation and
imposing a two-year prison sentence is affirmed.

                                           VIRAMONTES, J.

      WE CONCUR:

                  STRATTON, P. J.

                  WILEY, J.

                                 4