Opinion
B296641
02-19-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MILTON AUGUSTO MONTERROSO, Defendant and Appellant.
James R. Bostwick, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA433279) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jose I. Sandoval, Judge. Affirmed. James R. Bostwick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Milton Monterroso appeals from the judgment following his no contest plea to two counts of lewd acts upon a child and two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child. His counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
On August 20, 2019, we sent appellant a letter informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief setting forth issues he wished this court to consider. Appellant has not filed a response with the court.
I. Background
Appellant was charged in an amended felony complaint with 11 counts on four victims: five counts of lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts one, five, six, eight, and nine), two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts two and 10), two counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a); counts three and 11), and two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5, subd. (a); counts four and seven).
All further statutory references herein are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On January 14, 2019, the court held a hearing on a plea deal offered by the prosecution. The court advised appellant of his right to a jury or court trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena witnesses in his defense, and against self-incrimination. Appellant indicated that he understood and agreed to waive these rights. The court further informed appellant of the consequences of his plea and appellant stated he understood them and agreed to the plea.
Appellant pled no contest to counts one, four, seven, and nine. The court accepted the plea bargain, finding that there was a factual basis for appellant's plea and it was made knowingly, freely, and intelligently. The court sentenced appellant pursuant to the plea agreement to the mid-term of six years on count one as the base term, the high term of 16 years each on counts four and seven, and one-third the mid-term of two years on count nine. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively pursuant to section 667.6, subdivision (d), for a total sentence of 40 years. The remaining counts were dismissed pursuant to the plea.
Appellant timely appealed. His first notice of appeal, filed March 12, 2019, does not contain a certificate of probable cause, and is therefore limited to matters that do not affect the validity of his plea. Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on March 20, 2019, attaching his request for a certificate of probable cause based on (1) a "challenge to sentence negotiated as part of plea bargain"; and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel "before or during plea bargain, or in order to withdraw plea." The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause on April 16, 2019. On June 21, 2019, we dismissed without prejudice the second notice of appeal as duplicative of the first.
On August 19, 2019, we received a copy of a motion filed by appellant's counsel in the trial court, seeking to vacate the fines and fees imposed based on his inability to pay. Appellant has not identified any error by the trial court with respect to this issue. Thus, we do not reach it. --------
II. Appellant's claims
We have not received any further explanation from appellant or his counsel regarding the basis for his claims, either related to his plea or otherwise. Although we dismissed appellant's second notice of appeal, we broadly construe his original notice of appeal to include the grounds raised in both notices. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(a)(4).) Having done so, we find nothing in the record to support appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or unfairness in sentencing. During the hearing on appellant's plea, the trial court noted that the maximum exposure appellant faced was a sentence of 235 years to life.
III. Wende review
We have independently reviewed the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and appellant 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.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
COLLINS, J. We concur: MANELLA, P. J. CURREY, J.