Court Opinion

ID: 9927053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 01:02:04.266401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.709620
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Jaramillo CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050779
                                                                    (Monterey County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. 21CR001958)

             v.

 JOSE ISABEL VIRGEN JARAMILLO,

             Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Jose Isabel Virgen Jaramillo pleaded no contest to 18 counts involving
sex crimes against children. On May 26, 2022, he was sentenced to 227 years to life. On
January 30, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal, which was dated January 9, 2023,
regarding the judgment.
         On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We
notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within
30 days.1 We also requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding why this

         1
          Defendant sent this court a letter that was written in Spanish. This court sent the
letter to defendant’s appointed counsel, who agreed to translate it. Appointed counsel
subsequently notified this court that “[a]fter translating the letter, the letter does not
appear to be a supplemental brief but instead seems to be directed towards [appointed
counsel] and asks for further guidance.” Appointed counsel indicated to this court that he
would write to defendant to “again explain the Wende procedure.”
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In supplemental briefing, the parties agree
that the notice of appeal is untimely and that dismissal is appropriate. As defendant’s
January 30, 2023 notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the May 26, 2022
judgment, the notice of appeal is untimely and we will dismiss the appeal. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.308(a).)
                                     DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                             2
                                 BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

WILSON, J.

ADAMS, J.*

People v. Jaramillo
H050779

      *
       Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.