P. v. Hernandez

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/21/13  P. v. Hernandez CA2/4

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FOUR

 

 

 

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   PORFIRIO HERNANDEZ,               Defendant and Appellant.

B245151         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BA381811)

 

 

 

 

 

 

            APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge.  Affirmed.

            California
Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, and Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance
for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

            Defendant Porfirio Hernandez appeals
from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to a violation of Penal
Code section 288.5, subdivision (a), continuous sexual abuse.  He contends the trial court violated the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">plea agreement by sentencing him to more
than eight years in prison.  His claim is
without merit and we affirm the judgment.

            Defendant
was charged in a four-count information with committing various sex crimes.  On February
27, 2012, he pled no contest to one count of continuous sexual
abuse in exchange for a state prison commitment of 16 years.  This appeal followed.

            Defendant’s
court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting that we independently
review the record pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  On January 23, 2013, we sent a letter to
defendant advising him that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues
that he wished us to consider.  To date,
we have received no response. 

            The
reporter’s transcript reveals that defendant was told on two separate occasions
during the taking of the plea that he would be sentenced to prison for a term
of 16 years.  He stated that he
understood the terms of the agreement, and he was sentenced accordingly.

            We
are satisfied that no arguable issues
exist, and defendant has received effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him.  (>Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

>DISPOSITION

            The judgment is
affirmed.

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

 

                                                                                    SUZUKAWA,
J.

 

We concur:

 

 

 

            WILLHITE,
Acting P. J.                               MANELLA,
J.