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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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