Filed 7/28/26 P. v. Terrazas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
E087589
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.Nos. SWF2401214,
v. SWF2401009, SWF2300779)
RODOLFO ROJAS TERRAZAS III, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Rodolfo Rojas Terrazas III, appeals his conviction following a guilty plea. His
attorney has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 informing this court they were
unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the
record. Terrazas then filed a supplemental brief, arguing Penal Code section 1381
required dismissal of the three cases against him.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In May 2023 the Riverside District Attorney (“the district attorney”) charged
Terrazas with four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), one
count of unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), one count of
unlawful possession of body armor (§ 31360, subd. (a)) and possession of
methamphetamine. (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)
In May 2024 the district attorney charged Terrazas with three counts of willfully
causing physical pain or mental suffering on a child under circumstances likely to
produce great bodily injury (§ 273a, subd. (a)), one count of manufacturing an
unauthorized weapon (§ 33215), one count of unlawful possession of ammunition
(§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800,
subd. (a)(1)), two counts of receiving a stolen car (§ 496d, subd. (a)), one count of
possessing fentanyl (Health and Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a)), and one count of
possessing methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)).
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
2
In July 2024 the district attorney charged Terrazas with deterring an executive
officer (§ 69), resisting arrest (§ 148.10) and possessing methamphetamine (Health and
Saf. Code, § 11378).
In November 2025 Terrazas entered a plea agreement on all three cases, pleading
guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm in the first case, one count of
causing physical pain or mental suffering on a child under circumstances likely to
produce great bodily injury in the second case, and one count of deterring an executive
officer in the final case. Terrazas also admitted to a prior strike. Following the plea
agreement, the court sentenced Terrazas to an aggregate term of six years eight months,
composed of two years for causing physical pain or mental suffering on a child, eight
months for unlawfully possessing a firearm, and eight months for deterring an executive
officer, doubled due to Terrazas’s prior strike. The court awarded 28 days of custody
credit for the first case, 209 days of custody credit for the second, and no custody credits
for the third. It then waived certain fines and fees for inability to pay, and entered a no
negative contact order in the second case.
Terrazas filed a notice of appeal on December 24, 2025. Because he pled guilty,
he requested a certificate of probable cause. The court denied this request.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Terrazas on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct
an independent review of the record. We offered Terrazas an opportunity to file a
3
personal supplemental brief. He did so, arguing his case should have been dismissed
when he was not brought to trial within 90 days of making a demand for trial under
section 1381.
However, Terrazas did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. “Generally, a
defendant may appeal ‘from a final judgment of conviction.’ ” (People v. Stamps (2020)
9 Cal.5th 685, 694.) “However, if the judgment resulted from a guilty or no contest
plea,” section 1237.5, subdivisions (a) and (b), require the defendant to obtain a
certificate of probable cause. (Ibid.) “[S]ection 1237.5 admits of this exception: The
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 or seizure
whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5.” (Ibid.; see Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.304(b)(3).)
Here, Terrazas’s supplemental brief does not go to postplea or search and seizure
issues. Terrazas claims the court mishandled his demand under section 1381 and should
have dismissed all three of his cases because of it. But not only is this not a postplea
issue, Terrazas already litigated this issue in the trial court before his plea. We therefore
need not address his arguments on the merits.
Having independently reviewed the record for potential errors and finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Terrazas, we affirm the
judgment.
4
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
LEE
J.
5