P. v. Davila
Filed 7/17/12 P. v. Davila CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ DAVILA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B237217
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. GA083228)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County,
Janice C. Croft, Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard
B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________________
After
sexually molesting his daughter in 2011, Francisco Dominguez Davila was charged
by felony complaint with committing two counts of lewd act upon a child under
the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)),
count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288.5,
subd (a)). He pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
Represented by appointed counsel,
Davila waived his right to a preliminary hearing and entered a negotiated plea
of no contest to committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years
on or between March 1 and March 31,
2011, as charged in count 1.
In accordance with the plea
agreement, the trial court sentenced Davila to the lower state prison term
of three years, and the remaining charges were dismissed on the People’s
motion. The court ordered Davila to pay
a $40 court security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $200
restitution fine. The court imposed and
suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Davila was awarded a total of 146 days of
presentence credit (127 actual days and 19 days of conduct credit).
Davila timely filed a notice of
appeal in which he checked the box indicating, “This appeal is based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the
validity of the plea.”
We appointed
filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 19, 2012, we advised Davila he had 30 days in
which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. No response has been received
to date.
With respect to the one issue
specifically identified in the notice of appeal – his sentence – because the
imposition of the three-year sentence was an integral part of the plea
agreement, Davila cannot challenge his sentence without also attacking the
validity of the his plea. (
381-382; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13
Cal.4th 68, 78.) Thus, to the extent Davila’s appeal
purports to contest his three-year sentence, the notice of appeal is inoperative. With respect to other potential sentencing or
post-plea issues that do not in substance challenge the validity of the plea
itself, we have examined the record and are satisfied Davila’s attorney has
fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no
528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113;
436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WOODS,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
