From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Amarillas

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 12, 2008
No. B204817 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA075039, Arthur Jean, Jr., Judge.

Heather J. Manolakas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


HASTINGS, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

A felony complaint charged Maria Amarillas with transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and with possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). The felony complaint also alleged Amarillas had three prior felony convictions and was thus ineligible for probation (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4)).

Appearing with counsel, and before the preliminary hearing, Amarillas entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of unlawfully transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in exchange for a mid-term sentence of three years in state prison, and dismissal of the remaining charge. By accepting the plea offer, the court agreed to keep bail in effect in another case, and to permit her to remain free on bail for a month to allow her to arrange her personal affairs before sentencing. The court had informed Amarillas that if she chose not to accept the plea offer the court would remand her to custody that day.

Amarillas waived her constitutional rights and pleaded no contest to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Defense counsel did not join in the plea but stipulated to a factual basis for Amarillas’s plea. The court found Amarillas intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly waived her constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for the plea.

Amarillas hired private counsel who filed a motion on Amarillas’s behalf to withdraw her plea, claiming, in essence, the court had coerced Amarillas into accepting the plea offer by threatening her with immediate incarceration. The court denied Amarillas’s motion to withdraw her plea, sentenced her to the agreed term of three years in state prison, and dismissed the remaining count pursuant to the plea negotiations. The court imposed a $20 security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); and a $50 lab analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5). The court imposed and suspended a $200 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).

Amarillas timely filed a notice of appeal, stating she was appealing from the “judgment.” Amarillas did not request a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) We appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an “opening brief” in which counsel raised no issues. On June 19, 2008 we advised Amarillas she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. Amarillas did not respond within 30 days.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Amarillas’s counsel has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-278 [120 S.Ct. 746]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion of suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) In her notice of appeal, Amarillas states she is appealing from the “judgment.” Because Amarillas is, in substance, attacking the validity of her plea, her notice of appeal is inoperable and the appeal must be dismissed. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 769-771; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.)

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: MALLANO, P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Amarillas

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 12, 2008
No. B204817 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Amarillas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA AMARILLAS, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 12, 2008

Citations

No. B204817 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)