Filed 7/31/26 P. v. Parra CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B351256
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 25SFCF01690
JOSE DE PARRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.
An information charged Jose De Parra with fleeing a
pursuing peace officer while driving recklessly, driving a vehicle
without consent after having similar prior convictions, and
resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. De Parra also
had a 2009 conviction for assault, which the prosecutor alleged to
be a “strike” under the Three Strikes Law that would subject De
Parra to increased prison sentences if convicted of the newly
charged offenses.
In October 2025, De Parra filed a motion for mental health
diversion, which the prosecutor opposed.
In December 2025, the trial court denied De Parra’s
motion, citing public safety concerns. That same day, De Parra
pleaded no contest to the felony reckless evading count. The
court accepted De Parra’s plea and imposed the negotiated low-
term sixteen months of imprisonment.
De Parra immediately filed a notice of appeal. He also
requested a certificate of probable cause, citing as the basis for
his appeal the intent to challenge the denial of his motion for
mental health diversion.
The court denied De Parra’s request for a certificate of
probable cause.
We generally cannot rule on the merits of an appeal
following a negotiated plea unless the defendant has a certificate
of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999)
19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (Mendez); Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b).) There are exceptions to this rule, but none of those
exceptions apply here. (See Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096
“[t]he defendant may take an appeal without a statement of
certificate grounds or a certificate of probable cause if he does so
solely on noncertificate grounds, which go to postplea matters not
challenging his plea’s validity and/or matters involving a search
and seizure”.)
2
De Parra’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising
no issues, noting De Parra’s “appeal lies for any sentencing error
that would not violate the plea agreement.” Counsel also asked
this court to review the record independently under Wende.
Counsel further advised De Parra of his right to file a
supplemental brief for us to consider. De Parra filed no response.
We have examined the entire appellate record. We are
satisfied counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and no
arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–
442.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
SCHERB, J.
3