Court Opinion

ID: 9389501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 18:03:46.445294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.023688
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/25/23 P. v. Medina 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                 B320319

      Plaintiff and                                          (Los Angeles County
 Respondent,                                                 Super. Ct. No. KA121888)

           v.

 JOSE CRUZ MEDINA,

      Defendant and
 Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                          INTRODUCTION
      Appellant Jose Cruz Medina appeals after pleading guilty
to two sex offenses. His counsel filed an opening brief that raised
no issues and requested independent review of the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We
have independently examined the entire record and conclude no
arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      An information filed March 4, 2020 charged appellant with
one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10
years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); count 1) 1,
and two counts of lewd act upon a child under age 14 (§ 288,
subd. (a); counts 2 and 3). The information further alleged a
multiple victim enhancement on counts 2 and 3
(§ 667.61, subds. (a), (e)).
      On May 12, 2021 appellant and the prosecution entered
into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the
prosecution amended the information to add one count of
continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (§ 288.5,
subd. (a); count 4). Appellant pled guilty to count 3 and the
newly added count 4, and the prosecution dismissed the
remaining charges and allegations. The parties agreed that
appellant would be sentenced to the midterm of 12 years on count
4 and a consecutive term of two years (one-third the midterm) on
count 3.
      Prior to sentencing, appellant’s counsel was relieved from
representing him. Appellant’s new counsel filed a motion to
withdraw his plea based on previous counsel’s alleged provision

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

                                 2
of ineffective assistance. The prosecution opposed the motion.
The court denied the motion after a hearing.
       The court sentenced appellant in accordance with the plea
agreement: 12 years on count 4 and two years consecutive on
count 3. The court awarded appellant 1,136 days of custody
credit. It imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a
$60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and an
$80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8). It also imposed and
stayed a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45). The
court imposed registration requirements (§ 290) and ordered
appellant to provide a DNA sample (§ 296) and relinquish all
firearms (§ 29810).
       Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
He checked the box indicating the appeal was based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. He did not
request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable
cause.
                           DISCUSSION
       Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no arguable issues and
requesting this court conduct an independent review of the
record. We notified appellant that he had 30 days to file a
supplemental brief raising any issues or contentions he wished
this court to consider. To date, we have received no response.
       We have examined the entire record and discern no
arguable issues. By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
Wende procedure and our review of the record, appellant has
received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment.
(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

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

                          COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, ACTING, P.J.

DAUM, J.


 Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                               4