Opinion
B233930
11-14-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDGAR BRINGAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Edgar Bringas, in pro. per.; and William Hassler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA112543)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter Espinoza, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Edgar Bringas, in pro. per.; and William Hassler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Edgar Bringas entered a negotiated guilty plea to a single count of oral copulation of a child under the age of 10. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in prison. Defendant had been charged with six counts based upon multiple incidents of sexual conduct with his five-year-old nephew between the dates of September 1 and October 12, 2009. After his arrest, defendant confessed to orally copulating his nephew and forcing his nephew to orally copulate him on multiple occasions.
The court denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause, but defendant appealed anyway. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Defendant filed a supplemental brief.
Defendant's guilty plea and failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of defendant's appeal to "[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea's validity" or "[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5." (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
Defendant argues, in essence, that the charges against him were false and stemmed from animosity toward defendant's sister by the victim's father and grandmother, the victim's grandmother had committed fraud or theft, the deputy public defender who initially represented him did not give him copies of his records or effectively defend him, the private attorney who subsequently represented him did not do what defendant wanted, and his attorney and the prosecutor forced him to plead guilty. None of these contentions may be considered because they fall outside of the very narrow range of issues that defendant could raise in the wake of his guilty plea, and most are based on matters outside of the appellate record.
We have examined the entire record and have found that no arguable appellate issues exist, let alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, P. J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
JOHNSON, J.