Court Opinion

ID: 9929158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:02:18.860927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:17:42.065683
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/1/24 P. v. Pacheco 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                            B331142

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. MA084078)
           v.

 LORENZO ALBERTO PACHECO,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                _______________________________
     A felony complaint, filed on October 18, 2022, charged
Lorenzo Alberto Pacheco with one count of carjacking (Pen.
Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)). The complaint further alleged that in
committing the offense, Pacheco engaged in violent conduct that
indicates a serious danger to society within the meaning of
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1). The complaint also
alleged that Pacheco had a prior serious and/or violent felony
conviction—a 2016 robbery (§ 212.5)—within the meaning of the
“Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) & 1170.12).
       At a pretrial hearing on March 15, 2023, the trial court
(Judge Shannon Knight) informed Pacheco that his “maximum
exposure” on the carjacking offense, as pleaded, was 18 years in
prison (the upper term of nine years, doubled to 18 years because
of the prior strike). The court added that his exposure could
increase to 23 years if the prosecution were to allege the prior
robbery as a serious felony within the meaning of the five-year
serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a).
The prosecution offered Pacheco a plea deal under which he
would admit the prior strike and plead guilty or no contest to a
count of grand theft of an automobile (§ 487, subd. (d)(1))—a
nonserious, nonviolent, nonstrike felony offense—and he would
be sentenced to two years and eight months in prison (the low
term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior
strike). Pacheco indicated he wanted to discuss the proposed plea
deal with his counsel and respond to the offer on the next court
date. The prosecutor agreed to hold the deal open until then.
       At a hearing on April 6, 2023, the trial court (Judge
Knight) granted the prosecution’s motion to amend the felony

     1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                               2
complaint by interlineation to add count 2, a violation of section
487, subdivision (d)(1), grand theft of an automobile, and to allege
the prior strike (the 2016 robbery conviction) as to count 2.
Pacheco waived a preliminary hearing, waived his constitutional
rights, pleaded no contest to count 2, and admitted the prior
strike; and the court accepted the plea. Pacheco agreed to be
sentenced on May 10, 2023, before Judge Robert G. Chu.
       At the outset of the sentencing hearing on May 10, 2023,
defense counsel informed the trial court (Judge Chu) that
Pacheco told him he was “not happy with his deal” and “want[ed]
to take his deal back.” Defense counsel stated “there’s no legal
basis” for a motion to withdraw the plea. Pacheco told the court
he believed his counsel could have “fought” for a better deal, one
without admission of the prior strike. Defense counsel reviewed
with the court Pacheco’s exposure on the carjacking offense as
pleaded (18 years), and the agreed-upon sentence under the plea
agreement (two years and eight months for grand theft of an
automobile). The court found “no legal basis” that would allow
Pacheco to withdraw his plea.
       Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court
(Judge Chu) dismissed count 1 (carjacking) and sentenced
Pacheco on count 2 (grand theft of an automobile) to two years
and eight months in prison (the low term of 16 months, doubled
to 32 months because of the prior strike).
       On June 1, 2023, Pacheco, as a self-represented litigant,
filed a notice of appeal. Therein, he stated that he was appealing
from “the plea, sentencing and all legal proceedings imposed” in
this matter. He did not file a written statement pursuant to
section 1237.5, subdivision (a), “showing reasonable
constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the

                                 3
legality of the proceedings,” and the trial court did not issue a
certificate of probable cause.
       We appointed counsel to represent Pacheco in this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
raising no issues and asking this court to review the record
independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). On November 22, 2023, we sent a letter to Pacheco and
his appointed counsel, advising Pacheco that within 30 days he
could personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us
to consider, and directing counsel to send the record and opening
brief to Pacheco immediately. Pacheco has not filed a
supplemental brief.
       We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that
Pacheco’s counsel has complied with his responsibilities and
there are no arguable issues to be briefed. (People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
Pacheco’s no contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of
probable cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to
“[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the
plea’s validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence
under Penal Code section 1538.5.”2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b); see § 1237.5.) The record does not demonstrate the
existence of any such issue.
      We note that the abstract of judgment, filed on May 19,
2023, incorrectly states that Pacheco was convicted in this case of
carjacking in violation of section 215, subdivision (a). As set forth
above, Pacheco was convicted in this case of grand theft of an
automobile in violation of section 487, subdivision (d)(1). We

      2 Pacheco did not move to suppress evidence.

                                 4
order the trial court to correct this clerical error if it has not done
so already.
                           DISPOSITION
      The trial court is directed to correct the May 19, 2023
abstract of judgment to reflect that Pacheco was convicted of
grand theft of an automobile under section 487, subdivision (d)(1)
(not carjacking under section 215, subdivision (a)). As so
modified, the judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior
court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and
to forward it to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                                    CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                                   5