Opinion
D075419
10-22-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO MUNOZ OROZCO, Defendant and Appellant.
Ricardo Munoz Orozco, in pro. per.; and Rachel Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN372349) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Ricardo Munoz Orozco, in pro. per.; and Rachel Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ricardo Munoz Orozco pleaded guilty to three counts of forcible lewd acts on a minor (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). The remaining charges were dismissed. The parties did not agree upon a sentence, but the trial court suggested it would consider an 18-year prison term.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Orozco was sentenced to a determinate term of 18 years in prison. The trial court imposed various fines and fees. The trial court also ordered restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board in the amount of $3,587.
Orozco filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Orozco the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has done so. We will address Orozco's supplement brief later in this opinion.
This appeal is from a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause. The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. Thus, we will omit the traditional statement of facts
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief in this case. She asks this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues she considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: 1) Did the trial court follow the proper procedures in considering Orozco's desire to file a motion to withdraw his pleas. Trial counsel advised the trial court he could not identify any basis to file such motion and no motion was filed; and 2) whether the trial court erred in failing, without request, to hold a hearing on his ability to pay the various fines and fees imposed by the trial court.
Orozco's supplemental brief focuses entirely on his complaints about the legal representation he received at the preliminary hearing and before his guilty plea. All of the issues deal with matters outside the record on appeal. Without a certificate of probable cause, they are not properly before this court.
When a person challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel the person must produce a record from which the court can evaluate the claim. Claims of prejudicial failure to act by trial counsel ordinarily must be addressed in an appropriate petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267-268.) --------
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Orozco on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. BENKE, J.