Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC069128A
Margulies, J.
Following his plea of no contest to one count of lewd and lascivious conduct and one count of child molestation, defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the court’s denial of probation. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction asking this court to examine the record to determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Since the present appeal is taken from a no contest plea, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying conviction as necessary to our limited review on appeal. The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.
San Carlos Police Detective Tom Marinos testified he went to an apartment complex in the City of San Carlos on June 22, 2009, at approximately 5:33 p.m. When he arrived, he met up with other officers, Sergeants Robbins and Albertson, and Officer Chaput, and two Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers, one whom spoke Spanish. Albertson contacted defendant in the carport and after speaking with him learned he lived in apartment No. 4. According to Marinos, “We went upstairs and Martin spoke with his wife; brought her outside with CPS worker Le Vynh and explained to them why we were there.” Le Vynh proceeded to ask if “we could speak with the child alone.” After being given permission, Marinos, and the two CPS caseworkers spoke with four-year-old Jane Doe in the apartment bedroom. In response to questioning, Jane Doe related defendant had asked her to touch his penis three times, and had also “tickled her down there outside her clothing, ” indicating her vagina.
Following the conversation with Jane Doe, defendant was arrested and taken to the San Carlos Police Department to be interviewed. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant told Marinos Jane Doe had touched his penis on four different occasions in May 2009.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
An information was filed on October 1, 2009, charging defendant with four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a minor under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1, 2, 3, and 4), and one count of misdemeanor child molestation (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1); count 5). After amendment of count 5 to a felony, defendant entered a no contest plea to counts 1 and 5. In exchange for the plea, the court indicated it would sentence defendant to no more than three years in state prison.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
At sentencing, the court denied probation and imposed the low term of three years on count 1. Defendant received credits of 201 actual days and 30 conduct days for a total of 231 presentence custody credits. The court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4) and suspended a $200 fine pending completion of parole (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $30 court security fee. As to count 5, probation was denied and defendant was ordered to serve 166 days in county jail with credit for 166 actual days. Defendant was further ordered to register as a sex offender under section 290.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. By entering pleas of no contest, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crimes, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that goes to the question of whether he is guilty or not guilty. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) Without a certificate of probable cause, defendant cannot contest the validity of his pleas; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or issues relating to matters arising after the plea was entered. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We find no indication in the record of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We find no meritorious sentencing issues requiring reversal of the judgment. The court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon maximum sentence of three years in state prison.
There are no issues requiring further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P.J. Banke, J.