P. v. Oropeza

























Filed 3/21/13 P. v. Oropeza CA4/3





























NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OCTAVIO OROPEZA, Defendant and Appellant.

G046898 (Super. Ct. No. 10CF1427) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Craig E. Robison, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L.S. Angres,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent Octavio Oropeza on
appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set
forth the facts of the case. Counsel did
not argue against his client but advised the court no issues were found to argue
on his behalf. Oropeza was given

30
days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received
no communication from him.

Counsel did not provide
this court with any specific information to assist us with our independent review
pursuant to Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S.
738. We have reviewed the information
provided by counsel and have independently examined the record. We found no href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We
affirm the judgment.

FACTS

An information charged
Oropeza with three counts of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Codehref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c)

(counts
1, 2, and 3), and one count of possession of ammunition by a minor in violation
of section 12101, subdivisions (b)(1), and (c)(1)(C).href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] As to counts 2 and 3, the information alleged
Oropeza personally inflicted great bodily harm pursuant to section 12022.7,
subdivision (a). In exchange for a
three-year prison sentence and the dismissal of all other counts and the
enhancement, Oropeza pled guilty to one count of robbery in violation of
section 211.

> Before
accepting the plea, the trial court advised Oropeza of his href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">constitutional rights. The court accepted Oropeza’s plea and found
Oropeza had entered a voluntary, intelligent, knowing, and express waiver of
his constitutional rights. The court
also found there was a factual basis for the plea. Defense counsel joined in the plea and
waivers. The court continued sentencing
for two weeks to allow Oropeza to put his affairs in order before turning
himself in.

When Oropeza returned
two weeks later, the court imposed the agreed upon three-year prison
sentence. The court awarded Oropeza 90
days of credit for time served and 13 days of conduct credit. The court also imposed a restitution fine in
the amount of $200, and suspended a parole revocation fine in the amount of
$200. The court dismissed all other
counts and the enhancement. On the
prosecutor’s motion, the trial court dismissed two misdemeanors.>

DISCUSSION

Section
1237.5 provides: “No appeal shall be
taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or
nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of
violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the
trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury
showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to
the legality of the proceedings.
[¶] (b) The trial court has
executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the
clerk of the court.” Oropeza failed to
obtain a certificate of probable cause as required by section 1237.5. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a review
of the validity of his plea. (>People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668,
675.)

A
certificate of probable cause is not required when the notice of appeal states,
as this one does, that the appeal is based upon the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. Therefore, we have reviewed the whole record
focusing upon grounds for appeal arising after entry of the plea. Having done so, we conclude there is no
arguable issue on appeal.







DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.







O’LEARY,
P. J.



WE CONCUR:







BEDSWORTH, J.







ARONSON, J.