Opinion
A167226
10-31-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR ARMANDO GOMEZ RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 19NF009170A
HIRAMOTO, J.
The prosecution charged Oscar Armando Gomez Ramirez (defendant) with numerous felonies. In 2022-and in exchange for a stipulated 14-year prison sentence-he pled no contest to continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 (count 7) and committing a lewd act on a child under age 14 (count 8). He also admitted the two offenses were serious and violent felonies.
The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison, comprised of the middle term of 12 years on count 7, plus two years-one third of the six-year middle term-on count 8. The court imposed various fines and fees; it ordered him to pay restitution payable to the Victim's Compensation Board and reserved jurisdiction on victim restitution. It also ordered defendant to register as a sex offender and issued a criminal protective order. Finally, the court awarded him 1,433 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea, but the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. Thereafter, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record for arguable issues. Defendant filed a two-page supplemental brief leveling various criticisms, including that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 were violated, that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance before he entered a plea, and that his sentence is "hard and unusual punishment." He also insists he did not receive presentence custody credit.
Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5, his appeal is limited to grounds arising after entry of the plea that do not affect the plea's validity. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676-677 &fn. 3.) Applying these principles, we have examined the record and the assertions raised in defendant's supplemental brief, and we are satisfied there are no arguable issues. The stipulated 14-year sentence is within the statutorily prescribed range and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant's assertion that the trial court failed to award him presentence custody credit is unsupported by the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BROWN, P. J., GOLDMAN, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.