P. v. Aguilar
Filed 4/17/13 P. v. Aguilar CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DONALDO AGUILAR,
Defendant and Appellant.
B238748
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. MA046027)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Lisa M. Chung, Judge.
Dismissed.
Katharine
Eileen Greenebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant,
Donaldo Aguilar, entered into a plea
bargain whereby he waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence. Charged with special
circumstances murder, defendant agreed to testify against his accomplices. In exchange, he was permitted to plead no
contest to voluntary manslaughter and
kidnapping and admit the truth of a firearm use allegation. After being sentenced in full compliance with
the plea bargain, defendant appealed.
We raised
the issue of whether defendant waived his right
to appeal. Because we have a duty to
raise issues concerning our own jurisdiction on our own motion, we issued an
order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of defendant’s appeal. (Jennings
v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121,
126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398; see Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 307
[“Even if defendant had not raised the point at all, we would have been bound
to do so on our own motion if we had any doubt as to the finality of the
judgment appealed from.â€].) Defendant
has waived his right to appeal and the proper course is to dismiss his
appeal. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80, 84;
286, 292; People v. Nguyen (1993) 13
Cal.App.4th 114, 124.)
There is no
merit to defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal his
conviction and sentence was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant was represented by counsel. Above defendant’s signature, the following appears: “This Leniency Agreement letter was read to
me by a certified Spanish language interpreter in the presence of my
attorney. I have discussed the agreement
with my attorney using a certified Spanish language interpreter. I understand everything stated in the
agreement. I accept the agreement and
the conditions stated in this letter. I
understand the consequences to me should I fail to fulfill the terms and
conditions of the agreement. I do this
freely and voluntarily. No threats have
been made, and no promises other than those outlined in the letter have been
made to my family or me by anyone.â€
Prior to pleading no contest, defendant was expressly orally advised he
was waiving his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Prior to pleading no contest, defendant was
asked whether he had any other questions.
Defendant responded: “No. That was it.â€
Defendant then pled no contest and admitted a special allegation. There is no basis for concluding defendant
did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
The appeal
is dismissed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG,
J.
MOSK, J.
