Opinion
B245151
05-21-2013
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PORFIRIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, and Richard B. Lennon, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA381811)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Porfirio Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to a violation of Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a), continuous sexual abuse. He contends the trial court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him to more than eight years in prison. His claim is without merit and we affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged in a four-count information with committing various sex crimes. On February 27, 2012, he pled no contest to one count of continuous sexual abuse in exchange for a state prison commitment of 16 years. This appeal followed.
Defendant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On January 23, 2013, we sent a letter to defendant advising him that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues that he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
The reporter's transcript reveals that defendant was told on two separate occasions during the taking of the plea that he would be sentenced to prison for a term of 16 years. He stated that he understood the terms of the agreement, and he was sentenced accordingly.
We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and defendant has received effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J. We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
MANELLA, J.