Court Opinion

ID: 9390790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:02:51.305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.840288
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/28/23 P. v. PerezCanas CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         B322671

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. PA094869)
           v.

 JORGE ALBERTO PEREZCANAS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed.
     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                  ______________________
                        INTRODUCTION
      Defendant Jorge Alberto PerezCanas pled no contest to
continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288.5, subd. (a))
and was sentenced to six years in prison. He appealed but did
not request a certificate of probable cause regarding any
appellate issues. His appellate counsel then filed a brief under
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no
issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review
the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues.
      We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues,
and therefore affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
       In an information filed on August 12, 2021, the People
charged defendant with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a
child. (§ 288.5, subd. (a).) Defendant was accused of touching the
victim’s vagina on multiple occasions from November 2018 to
July 2020. A conviction under section 288.5, subdivision (a)
carries a prison term of 6, 12 or 16 years. (Ibid.)
       On June 16, 2022, defendant waived his trial rights and
pled no contest to the charge, agreeing to a six-year sentence with
a waiver of pre-sentence credits. The parties stipulated to a
factual basis for the plea and the court accepted defendant’s plea
and waivers on the record, finding them to have been knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily made. The court imposed a six-year
prison sentence with a waiver of pre-sentence credits all
according to the negotiated plea agreement. Also consistent with

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

                                 2
the plea agreement, the court ordered defendant to make full
restitution (with the amount, if any, to be determined at a later
hearing), imposed a 10-year criminal protective order prohibiting
defendant from contacting the victim and another named child,
and ordered defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to
section 290 for life. The court additionally ordered defendant to
provide a DNA sample and print impressions (§ 296) and to
submit to an AIDS test (§ 1202.1). The court imposed a
restitution fine in the minimum amount (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a
sex offender fine (§ 290.3), a court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8), and a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
The court also imposed, but stayed, a parole revocation fine.
(§ 1202.45.)
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 1, 2022.
The notice indicates that “[the] appeal is based on the sentence or
other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the
validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)”
                           DISCUSSION
       Defendant did not file the written statement required by
section 1237.5 for issuance of a certificate of probable cause.
Accordingly, on September 9, 2022, this court issued an order
limiting the issues on appeal to those which do not require a
certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. A 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 raise 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); People v. Johnson (2009) 47
Cal.4th 668, 676-677 & fn. 3.) Defendant did not make any
motion to suppress in this case.

                                  3
      We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this
appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief
requesting that this court independently review the record
pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. This court and
defendant’s counsel both advised defendant that he could file a
supplemental brief stating any grounds for an appeal, or
contentions or arguments which defendant wishes this court to
consider. Defendant did not submit a brief.
      We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that
no arguable issues exist, and that defendant’s attorney has
complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pp. 441-442.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             BENDIX, J.

                                  4