P. v. Sanchez

















Filed 12/11/12 P.
v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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. JULIO ARTEAGA SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

G047085 (Super. Ct. No. 12CF0541) O P I N I O N

Appeal
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge.
Dismissed.

Anita
P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

An amended felony complaint filed April 20, 2012, charged defendant Julio Arteaga Sanchez with 13 counts of grand
theft, 12 counts of vandalism, and possession of a controlled substance. On April 23, 2012,
Sanchez waived his constitutional rights and pleaded guilty to the theft and
drug charges in exchange for the prosecution dismissing the vandalism
charges. As part of his guilty plea,
Sanchez waived his right to appeal “from any and all decisions and orders made
in [the] case,” including any “legally authorized sentence the court imposes
which is within the terms and limits of [the] plea agreement.”

Sanchez nonetheless appealed, asserting the appeal was based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the
validity of the plea. (See Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).) We
appointed counsel to represent him.
Counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case, but advised
this court she found no issues to support an appeal. We provided Sanchez 30 days to file his own
written argument, but he has not responded.
After conducting an independent review of the record under >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we
dismiss the appeal.

According to Sanchez’s factual statement accompanying his plea, he
“willfully and unlawfully took the . . . property” from numerous businesses
between December
15, 2011 and February 21, 2012. He also possessed a usable
quantity of methamphetamine on February 21, 2012. Trial counsel stipulated to the factual basis
and joined in the plea. Sanchez faced a
prison term of 11 years and eight months.
The court placed him on probation for five years on various terms and
conditions, including service of 180 days in jail. The court also ordered Sanchez to pay more
than $200,000 in restitution to the theft victims.

Sanchez’s appellate lawyer identifies no issues for our consideration. We have reviewed the record and likewise find
no arguable issues. A defendant’s guilty
plea admits all matters essential to the conviction. The issues cognizable on appeal are those
based on “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to
the legality of the proceedings” resulting in the plea. But review of these issues requires a
certificate of probable cause, which defendant failed to obtain. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a);
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B) & (b)(5).) Section 1237.5 is designed “to promote
judicial economy by screening out wholly frivolous guilty” plea appeals before
time and money are spent on such matters as the preparation of the record on
appeal, the appointment of appellate counsel, and consideration and decision of
the appeal itself. (People v. Mendez (1999)
19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (Mendez).)

Appealable issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause
include the sentence or other matters occurring “after entry of the plea,” and
the denial of a suppression motion.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).) But in the case of a negotiated plea with
specification of penalty, a certificate is required because the defendant’s
challenge to the sentence implicates the plea.
(People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.) name="citeas((Cite_as:_2010_WL_3530370,_*3_(Ca">Moreover, here defendant expressly
waived his right to appeal in conjunction with his guilty plea as to any
“legally authorized sentence the court imposes which is within the terms and
limits of [the] plea agreement.” The
trial court’s imposition of probation was legally authorized. In short, the appeal is wholly
frivolous and must be dismissed. (Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp.
1096-1099.)

name=B013132027070832>Disposition



The
appeal is dismissed.







ARONSON,
J.





WE CONCUR:







MOORE, ACTING P. J.







IKOLA, J.