Court Opinion

ID: 9945495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:03:25.72947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.109709
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/27/24 P. v. Guerra CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                       THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                          (Yolo)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097903

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CR20203171)

           v.

 LOT PEREZ GUERRA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Lot Perez Guerra has asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         In order to facilitate a plea, the People’s third amended information charged
defendant with: assault with intent to commit a specified sexual offense (Pen. Code,

                                                             1
§ 220, subd. (b)—count 1);1 burglary (§ 459—counts 2 and 5); lewd and lascivious
behavior upon a child aged 14 or 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)—counts 3 and 4); misdemeanor
sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)—count 6); and assault with intent to commit a
specified sexual offense on an individual under 18 years of age (§ 220, subd. (a)(2)—
count 7). The information further alleged that count 7 was committed with a deadly
weapon. (§ 12022.3, subd. (b).) This information also alleged 10 circumstances in
aggravation for purposes of sentencing.
       Defendant pled no contest to counts 5, 6, and 7. Defendant also admitted the
deadly weapon enhancement. In exchange, defendant would receive a stipulated
aggregate prison term of 14 years comprised of the upper term of nine years on count 7,
plus five years for the weapon enhancement. Defendant would also receive concurrent
terms for counts 5 and 6. The stipulated factual basis for defendant’s plea was the
preliminary hearing transcript with the addition that defendant had wielded a screwdriver
or similar tool during the assault of the minor victim. The remaining counts and
enhancements were dismissed on the People’s motion in the interests of justice.
       On July 13, 2022, prior to sentencing, the trial court received a letter from
defendant complaining he had just learned his retained attorney’s license was revoked on
November 5, 2021, and requesting a new attorney. At the start of the August 2, 2022
sentencing hearing, the trial court addressed defendant’s letter explaining he could fire his
privately retained counsel if he desired, and the court would appoint him a new attorney.
Defendant conferred with his retained counsel and counsel informed the court that
defendant was concerned with the possible application of Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-
2022 Reg. Sess.) given that he may have mitigating circumstances under that legislation.
Defendant’s counsel had advised defendant that these issues would have to be dealt with

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
in the trial court and that there was no guarantee of a more favorable plea if he were
successful in bringing an ineffective assistance claim allowing him to withdraw from his
plea agreement. The People added that the aggravating factors in defendant’s case
substantially outweighed the mitigating factors such that it was unlikely defendant would
receive a more favorable sentence even with the ameliorative legislation. Defendant
elected to not fire his counsel and proceeded with sentencing that day.
       Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant as recommended by the probation
department and in accordance with the plea agreement to the aggregate prison term of 14
years comprised of the upper term of nine years on count 7, plus the upper term of five
years for the weapon enhancement, plus a concurrent upper term of six years for the
burglary, and a concurrent term of 364 days in jail. The trial court further awarded $475
in victim restitution to one victim and $1,244.47 in restitution to the other victim.
       We granted defendant’s request to file his notice of appeal under the constructive
filing doctrine on February 24, 2023. Defendant’s notice of appeal checked the box
challenging matters occurring at sentencing or after his plea that did not affect the
validity of the plea. Defendant also completed a request for a certificate of probable
cause, which was not ruled upon by the trial court.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant
requested and was granted an extension to January 2, 2024, to file a supplemental brief.
However, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

                                              3
      Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we
will affirm the judgment.
                                  III. DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                         /S/

                                                RENNER, J.

      We concur:

      /S/

      HULL, Acting P. J.

      /S/

      MAURO, J.

                                            4