Court Opinion

ID: 9838914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 18:04:00.61237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:58.425555
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Avila CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A167257
 v.
 ADRIAN AVILA, JR.,                                                     (Del Norte County
                                                                        Super. Ct. Nos. CRPB 2022-5089,
           Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                        CRPB 2022-5091)

         Appellant Adrian Avila, Jr. (appellant) appeals from the judgment
entered following his no contest pleas to possession of a stabbing instrument
by a prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a))1 and indecent exposure with a
prior conviction for the same (§ 314). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue
on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have
reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.
                                                   BACKGROUND
         Appellant is an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison. In July 2022, in
case number CRPB 2022-5089, the Del Norte County District Attorney filed a

         1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                               1
complaint charging appellant with three separate violations of section 314,
indecent exposure. As to each of the three counts, the complaint alleged that
appellant was convicted of the same offense in 2008. The complaint also
alleged appellant had three prior strike convictions.
      In August 2022, in case number CRPB 2022-5091, the Del Norte
County District Attorney filed an amended complaint charging appellant
with two violations of section 4502, subdivision (a), possession of a stabbing
instrument by a prisoner. The complaint also alleged appellant had three
prior strike convictions.
      In October 2022, appellant entered into a plea agreement resolving
both cases. He agreed to plead guilty to one of the weapon possession counts
in case number CRPB 2022-5091, with a midterm sentence of three years to
be served consecutive to his current prison term. In case number CRPB
2022-5089, he agreed to plead no contest to one of the indecent exposure
counts, with a concurrent two-year sentence. All remaining charges and the
strike allegations would be dismissed. Appellant completed a declaration
memorializing the agreement and acknowledging the various rights he would
give up by entering the plea.
      At a hearing, appellant pled no contest to the two charges (rather than
guilty) after acknowledging his constitutional rights and the potential
consequences of his plea. Appellant also admitted he was previously
convicted of indecent exposure. He affirmed he had not “taken any drugs or
medicine or anything that would interfere with [his] ability to understand the
proceedings.” The prosecutor explained that the weapons possession charge
was based on a correctional officer’s discovery of an “inmate-manufactured
weapon” on appellant’s person and that the indecent exposure charge was
based on an incident during which appellant masturbated in front of a female

                                       2
correctional officer. The trial court found appellant had “freely, voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights, understands the nature of the
charges, and possible consequences, and that there is a factual basis for . . .
accepting the plea.”
      At the outset of the December 2022 sentencing hearing, defense counsel
told the court that appellant “tentatively wanted to withdraw his plea.” But
appellant changed his mind upon learning the prosecutor had stated she
would not bring charges for other “pending referrals” if appellant did not
withdraw his plea.
      The trial court sentenced appellant to a three-year term for the weapon
possession and a two-year concurrent term for the indecent exposure charge.
Based on a finding of inability to pay, the court did not impose any fines or
fees other than a section 1202.45 parole revocation fine.
      On February 6, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal, indicating he
was challenging the validity of his plea. He requested a certificate of
probable cause, stating through counsel, “I hope you can assist me in
withdrawing my plea on the P.C. 314 case since there was never any evidence
and that case doesn’t even meet the criteria for a P.C. 314.” The trial court
denied the request.
      On February 16, 2023, appellant filed an “amended” notice of appeal.
He requested a certificate of probable cause, stating, “I was just diagnosed
with some mental health issues at the time of my no-contest plea and was
given a higher level of care (EOP) enhanced out patient status. So my mind
frame was unstable at the time of the no-contest plea. I am now on
medication to keep me stable. I want to withdraw my no-contest plea based
on the aforementioned.” The request was denied.

                                        3
                                 DISCUSSION
      Appellant’s guilty plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us.
Because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited
to “postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the
validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
      We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable
appellate issues. We do not consider claims based on appellant’s assertions
about the validity of his plea in his notice of appeal because he was denied a
certificate of probable cause. Although appellant “tentatively” expressed
interest in moving to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, he ultimately
decided not to do so. The sentence imposed by the trial court was in
accordance with the plea agreement.
      Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental
brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review.
(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a
supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
                                DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                        4
                     SIMONS, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P. J.

BURNS, J.

(A167257)

                 5