P. v. Valencia















Filed 2/25/13
P. v. Valencia CA5









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER LEAL VALENCIA, Defendant and Appellant.

F064509 (Tulare Super. Ct. No. VCF246808) >OPINION

THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Tulare
County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge.

Jeff Cunan,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of
the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

>INTRODUCTION

Appellant/defendant Christopher
Leal Valencia pleaded no contest to two felony counts: second
degree burglary (Pen. Code,href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1] § 459) and grand theft (§ 487, subd.
(a)). Thereafter, he received a jury
trial on a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (a)) and
was convicted. He was sentenced to two
years in prison.

On appeal, his appellate counsel
has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record,
raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) We will affirm.

>FACTShref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[2]>

On the
morning of November 5, 2010, defendant entered Quality Jewelers in
Visalia. The clerk thought he was acting
strange. Defendant asked to see a
diamond ring which was in a display case.
The ring was worth about $1,000.
The clerk removed it from the case and showed it to defendant. Defendant rubbed the diamond ring against his
shirt, switched with a ring of his own, and put his own ring back in the
display. The clerk chased him, and
defendant ran away.

Later that
afternoon, defendant walked into a dental clinic in Visalia, spoke to the
receptionist, and complained of a toothache.
The receptionist referred him to another dental clinic. Defendant turned away from her, and moved his
hands as if he was trying to raise the zipper on his pants. Defendant then turned around to face the
receptionist. He had lowered his zipper
and exposed his sexual organ. When
another clerk confronted defendant, he went down to the floor, grabbed his
crotch, groaned, and crawled out of the clinic.

A police
officer responded to the clinic and found defendant about two miles away. Defendant said he was wearing underwear and
that was the only thing the receptionist could have seen. The officer searched defendant and found the
stolen ring.

>PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January
6, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Tulare County which
charged defendant with count I, second degree burglary of Quality Jewelers;
count II, grand theft from Quality Jewelers; and count III, misdemeanor
indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1)).

On April
28, 2011, defendant made a motion to
discharge his appointed counsel. The
court conducted an in camera hearing and denied the motion. Defense counsel declared a doubt as to
defendant’s competency, and the court appointed experts pursuant to section
1368.

On June 8,
2011, the court reviewed the experts’ reports, found defendant was not
competent to stand trial, and suspended criminal proceedings. On June 30, 2011, the court committed
defendant to Atascadero State Hospital (Atascadero).

On
September 27, 2011, Atascadero issued a certificate of restoration of mental
competency. On November 4, 2011, the
court found defendant was competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.

On December
8, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to felony counts I and II, and requested
a jury trial for misdemeanor count III.

On December
19, 2011, the jury trial was held for count III, and defendant was found guilty
of indecent exposure.

On March 1,
2012, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea agreement to two years
for count I, with a concurrent two-year term for count II, with credit for time
served. Defendant was ordered to
register as a sex offender.

The court
imposed a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b),
and stayed the $200 restitution fine under section 1202.45. The court imposed a $120 court security fee
(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1) [$40 for each count]); a $90 court facility
funding assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1) [$30 for each count];
and a $300 fee pursuant to section 290.3.

>DISCUSSION

As noted >ante, defendant’s appellate counsel has
filed a Wende brief with this
court. The brief also includes the
declaration of appellate counsel indicating that defendant was advised he could
file his own brief with this court. By
letter on June 13, 2012, we invited defendant to submit additional
briefing. To date, he has not done so.

Defendant
has not requested or obtained a certificate
of probable cause and therefore cannot challenge the underlying validity of
his pleas to counts I and II. (>People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68,
77-79.)

After
independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual
or legal issues exist.

>DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.