Court Opinion

ID: 9370106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 20:02:36.773524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.482396
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/10/23 P. v. Martinez CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B320138

     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. Nos. BA487715 &
                   v.                                         BA488695)

SAUL RAFAEL MARTINEZ,

     Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Terry A. Bork, Judge. Affirmed.

     Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                        **********
        In December 2020, defendant and appellant Saul Rafael
Martinez agreed to plead no contest to charges he faced in two
different cases. After waiving his rights on the record, defendant
pled no contest to one count of taking or driving a vehicle without
consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one count of carrying
a loaded handgun (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)). Counsel joined
in the waivers and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The
court found defendant’s waivers to be knowingly and voluntarily
made, accepted defendant’s plea and found him guilty of both
counts.
       In accordance with the plea agreement, the court
suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on
three years formal probation and awarded him 222 days of
custody credits.
       Less than a year later, defendant was arrested at a
suspected illegal gambling operation where firearms were
present and in possession of methamphetamines. At a hearing
on September 8, 2021, the court revoked probation in both cases
pending a formal hearing and held defendant in custody with no
bail.
       At the probation violation hearing in November 2021, the
court heard testimony from several officers and argument from
counsel. The court found the prosecution met its burden of
demonstrating defendant’s willful violation of the terms of
probation and revoked defendant’s probation in both cases.
       Defendant was present with counsel at the sentencing
hearing on February 28, 2022. The court imposed a two-year
middle term in case No. BA487715 (carrying a loaded firearm)
and an eight-month consecutive term (one-third the middle term)
in case No. BA488695 (driving a vehicle without consent) for a

                                 2
total sentence of two years eight months. The court ordered all
fines and assessments stricken in their entirety in accordance
with People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 and current
Los Angeles County policy. The court awarded defendant
574 days of custody credits. The court credited defendant with
time served and issued a release order.
       This appeal followed. We appointed appellate counsel to
represent defendant. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in
which no issues were raised.
       The Wende brief included a declaration from counsel in
which he explained that defendant was released from custody,
having finished his sentence, prior to counsel’s appointment to
handle the appeal. The only mailing address for defendant was
in care of the public defender’s office. Counsel made several
attempts to contact defendant through trial counsel without
success. Counsel stated he remains available to brief any issues
requested by the court.
       We have examined the entire record of proceedings
submitted to this court and are satisfied that appointed counsel
fully complied with his responsibilities. We find no arguable
appellate issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

     WE CONCUR:
                       WILEY, J.           VIRAMONTES, J.

                                3