Court Opinion

ID: 9376761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 19:02:26.16334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.088746
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/3/23 P. v. Barrera CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079919

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWF2001279)

 JOEL ALEXANDER BARRERA,                                                 OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.

Affirmed.

         David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant Joel Alexander Barrera appeals from a judgment of

conviction after pleading guilty on six felony counts. For the reasons set forth post, we

affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       On December 13, 2021, an information charged defendant with committing lewd

and lascivious acts against Jane Doe, a minor under 14 years of age, under Penal Code

section 288, subdivision (a): (1) on or about September 24, 2009, through September 23,

2011, (counts 1-3); (2) on or about December 24, 2017 (count 4); and (3) on or about

October 16, 2015, through December 23, 2017 (counts 5, 6). The information also

alleged that defendant violated Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1), by committing

lewd and lascivious acts against Jane Doe, who was a child 14 or 15 years old, and more

than 10 years younger that defendant (count 7). As to counts 1 through 6, the information

further alleged that defendant committed a qualifying sex offense under Penal Code

section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4).

       On August 19, 2022, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 through 6.1 Thereafter, the

trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in state prison, as follows: the upper term of

eight years for count 1, and 2 years each (one-third the middle term of six years) for

counts 2 through 6, with 563 days custody credit, including 490 actual days and 73 work

days under Penal Code section 2933.1. The court then found that defendant was unable

to pay fines and fees. The court imposed and stayed execution of a $300 restitution fine

under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). Moreover, the court struck the

enhancements for counts 1 through 6, and dismissed count 7, in the interest of justice

under section 1385.

       1 Although counts 4 through 6 occurred in Los Angeles County, defendant waived
any jurisdictional issues.

                                             2
       On September 30, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On October 3,

2022, the trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

                                STATEMENT OF FACTS

       Defendant admitted to committing the acts as alleged in the information, counts 1

through 6.

                                        DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of

the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this

court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified

the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

       “Did the court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the Los Angeles County charges

violate appellant’s rights under the vicinage clause of the Six Amendment to the United

States Constitution? (See generally People v. Gbadebo-Soda (1995) 28 Cal.App.4th 160,

169-173 [waiver of vicinage right].)”

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he

has not done so.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                               3
                                      DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                    MILLER
                                                             J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                    Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON
                                 J.

                                           4