Filed 7/2/26 P. v. Amador CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B345403
(Super. Ct. No. 24F-03342)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
FRANCISCO VALDEZ
AMADOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant Francisco Valdez Amador challenges the validity
of his plea, requesting our independent review under People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Amador was on parole for one day when he attempted to
contact a sex worker and was caught in a sting operation. Officer
Christopher Landin posted an ad online to offer hookup
opportunities, posing as a 15-year-old female. Amador’s phone
was used to call the advertised number and communicate with
Officer Landin via text message. Amador was told the girls were
15 years old. He agreed to meet up with them for sex in exchange
for $200. According to the People, he also texted a photo of his
face and another of his penis.
Amador went to a Pismo Beach Motel 6, where police set up
surveillance. Officer Landin lured Amador out of the motel room
by texting a request that he pick up liquor for the girls. Amador
was arrested when he emerged and was found in possession of
the phone used. A search of the room turned up $1869 in cash.
Amador denied involvement and stated someone else had been
using his phone.
The district attorney charged Amador with contact with a
minor with intent to commit a sexual offense (Pen. Code1, § 288.3,
subd. (a); count 1) and meeting a minor for lewd purposes
(§ 288.4; count 2). The complaint alleged Amador suffered a prior
serious or violent felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (d) & (e)). It also
alleged all the aggravating factors under California Rules of
Court, rule 4.421 (a) and (b).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Amador pleaded guilty to
count two, admitted the strike prior, and the court dismissed
count one. Prior to sentencing, Amador moved to withdraw his
plea. His motion was denied.
The court sentenced Amador to the low term of two years,
doubled to four years for the strike prior. His sentence totaled
four years with 280 actual days and 280 conduct credits for a
total of 560 days of pre-custody credit. The court ordered Amador
to provide saliva and blood specimens pursuant to sections 1524.1
and 1202.1, lifetime registration pursuant to section 290, imposed
a restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b),
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
and stayed a probation revocation restitution fine of $300 under
section 1202.45. The court further imposed a $30 criminal
conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373 and
a $40 court security fee under section 1465.8. Amador filed a
notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea and a
certificate of probable cause was granted.
Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. The brief included a declaration stating
counsel had written to Amador, explained the brief counsel was
filing, and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief.
On April 24, 2026, we advised Amador by mail that he had 30
days to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished us
to consider. We did not receive a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp.
441-443.) The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J. BALTODANO, J.
3
Catherine J. Swysen, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
4