Opinion
H044913
06-08-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IGNACIO CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. B1686286)
Defendant Ignacio Chavez appeals from the trial court's grant of felony probation following his no contest plea to stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)). Upon defendant's timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no arguable issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant filed a letter raising multiple issues.
We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-441.) We include here a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the conviction and punishment imposed (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124), and address the contentions defendant raised in his letter. Finding no arguable issue, we will affirm the judgment.
I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
According to testimony at defendant's preliminary hearing, a thrift store employee named Paula noticed defendant regularly visited the store where she worked. (Paula's surname was kept confidential.) Paula worked at different thrift store locations in Santa Clara County over the course of a few years, and defendant regularly visited each of the stores. While working at a location in Palo Alto between 2012 and 2014, Paula saw defendant almost every day at the store. He often looked at her, and rarely purchased anything. When Paula moved to a store in Sunnyvale, defendant continued visiting regularly and made her nervous by sitting in his car in front of the store for hours at a time. Paula left the thrift store job and started working for an insurance company in mid-2015. Though she had not informed anyone at her old job about the location of her new job, defendant found her. One day when Paula returned to the insurance office with a coworker, they discovered defendant standing next to her car. He asked to speak with Paula in private, and she refused. Defendant reportedly told her, " 'You will be sorry if you don't speak to me.' " Defendant began routinely driving in front of Paula's residence after the incident at the insurance company, which left Paula terrified. Defendant also left Paula what she described as love letters, which she turned over to the police.
Defendant was held to answer and charged by information with one count of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)). As part of a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to stalking in return for three years' felony probation and imposition of a 10-year protective order forbidding defendant from contacting Paula. At the change of plea hearing, defendant stated that he read and understood everything on the waiver of rights form he signed and that he had no questions about that form.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on felony probation for three years. The trial court ordered that defendant serve 364 days in county jail as a condition of probation "based on the seriousness of the conduct and ... the implicit threats to the victim." The court imposed both a three-year no-contact order as a condition of probation and a 10-year criminal protective order forbidding defendant from having any contact with Paula. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (k).)
The court imposed the minimum $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a suspended $300 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44); a $30 administrative fee for the restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (l)); a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 court facilities funding assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); a $129.75 criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, §§ 29550-29550.3); and a $20 monthly probation supervision fee. The court waived the presentence investigation fee after considering defendant's statement of assets. Defendant received four days of presentence credit, based on two actual days plus two days conduct credit (Pen. Code, § 4019).
II. DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS
Defendant argues on his own behalf that: (1) an interviewing officer did not inform defendant of his right to remain silent, and interviewed defendant in English even though defendant informed him that his primary language was Spanish; (2) the probation officer who conducted an interview with defendant while preparing the probation report did not listen to his concern about being unhappy with his attorney; (3) Paula misinterpreted the letters he sent her; (4) a map of thrift store locations attached to his letter shows that they are near his residence; and (5) receipts from the thrift store attached to his letter show that he purchased items at the thrift store before Paula started working there.
All of defendant's arguments go to the validity of his plea rather than to grounds arising after entry of the plea. Because defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, those arguments are not cognizable here. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
/s/_________
Greenwood, P. J. /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.