P. v. Castellanos
Filed 8/20/12 P. v. Castellanos CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE LUIS CASTELLANOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B239932
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. VA116669)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County,
H. Randolph Moore, Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard
B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
After hitting his girlfriend during
an argument in May 2010, Jose Luis Castellanos was charged by felony complaint
with two counts of inflicting corporal
injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),
and one count of dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd
(c)(1)). He pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
Represented by appointed counsel,
Castellanos waived his right to a
preliminary hearing and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to
inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant as charged in count 1. In accordance with the plea agreement, the
trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Castellanos on five years
of formal probation. The remaining
charges were dismissed on the People’s motion.
The court ordered Castellanos to pay a $30 court security fee, a $400
assessment to the domestic violence fund, a $120 restitution fine and $300 in
victim restitution. The court imposed
and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Castellanos was awarded 30 days of
presentence credit (15 actual days and 15 days of conduct credit).
Castellanos timely filed a notice
of appeal, and his certificate of probable cause was denied.
We appointed
appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On June 25, 2012, we advised Castellanos he had 30 days
in which to personally submit any contentions
or issues he wished us to consider.
No response has been received to date.
With respect to the one issue
specifically identified in the notice of appeal that does not in substance
challenge the validity of the plea itself – his presentence custody credits –
the record reflects they were properly calculated by the trial court. We have examined the record and are satisfied
Castellanos’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel,
and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113;
436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WOODS,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Castellanos was not arrested
on this case until January 24, 2012. His motion to dismiss for failure to comply
with an earlier demand for trial as an in-custody defendant was denied because
he was paroled from prison (on LASC case No. VA116151) prior to the expiration
of the 90 day period in which to bring an in-custody defendant to trial. The trial court refused to issue a
certificate of probable cause for Castellanos to challenge the denial of his
motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2012, this court denied Castellanos’s petition for writ of mandate to compel
the trial court to issue a certificate of probable cause.
