P. v. Valenzuela
Filed 3/2/12 P. v. Valenzuela CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LUIS A. VALENZUELA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236695
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. KA050605)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Jack P. Hunt, Judge.
Affirmed.
Tracy A.
Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Luis A. Valenzuela, appeals after he pled no
contest in February 2001 to one count of sexual
battery by restraint (Pen. Code,
(c)). A charge that defendant had
committed a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years old
(§ 288, subd. (a)) was dismissed as part of the
state prison.
On August 4, 2008, the trial court denied
defendant’s petition for expungement or, alternatively, to reduce the felony to
a misdemeanor. (§§17, 1203.4a) On October
5, 2011, the trial court denied a subsequent petition to dismiss
the case or reduce the felony to a misdemeanor.
(§§ 17, 1203.4 [applying to probationary defendants], 1203.4a
[applying to misdemeanants denied probation]; see also People v. Mendez (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1773, 1780 [post-conviction
relief under sections 1203.4 and 1203.4a does not apply to person convicted of
felony and committed to state prison]; People
v. Morrison (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 995, 999 [section 1203.4 only applies to
probationers]; People v. Borja (1980)
110 Cal.App.3d 378, 382-383 [section 1203.4 applies only to probationers and
not to discharged parolees].) Defendant
filed a notice of appeal on October 7,
2011, which is deemed to be from the October 5, 2011 order denying the petition to
dismiss.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. After examination
of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were
raised. Instead, counsel requested this
court to independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to
441. On January 26, 2012, we advised defendant that he had 30 days
within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wishes us to
consider. No response has been
received.
We have
examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has
fully complied with her responsibilities.
No argument exists favorable to defendant in the appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259,
277-284; People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The October 5, 2011 order denying the
petition to dismiss is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER,
J.
title="">[1] All further statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
