Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS092692.
PREMO, J.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Martin Maldonado Arteaga pleaded guilty to three counts of committing a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon 10 years in prison. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted written argument, which we have read and considered.
I. Facts
Defendant was the neighbor of a seven-year-old child who knew defendant as “Daddy Martin.” In or about November 2009, after having had a class in school about “good touch and bad touch, ” the child reported to her parent that defendant had entered the bedroom one night, pulled her pajama bottoms down, spread her legs, and licked her “private.” After law enforcement investigated, the Monterey County District Attorney charged defendant with one count of oral copulation with a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and one count of committing a lewd act upon the child (id. § 288, subd. (a)).
Just before trial, the prosecutor amended the information to add two additional counts of violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), both related to the same incident. Defendant pleaded guilty to the three Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) counts and the trial court sentenced him on those counts only for the stipulated term of 10 years.
II. Discussion
Defendant’s written argument pertains to his contention that the proceedings against him were conducted unfairly. Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, which is required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Accordingly, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states, as this one does, that it is based upon grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon grounds for appeal arising after entry of the plea. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.