From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Montoya

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Jan 26, 2012
B234602 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)

Opinion

B234602

01-26-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS A. MONTOYA, Defendant and Appellant.

Melanie K. Dorian, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PA066380)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior court of Los Angeles County. David B. Gelfound, Judge. Affirmed.

Melanie K. Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On December 1, 2009, Jesus Montoya and three companions entered the residence of 17-year Hector M., held him down at gunpoint with a blanket over his head, and took approximately $9,700 worth of property, including jewelry and electronics. Montoya was charged in a felony complaint with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, the information also alleging firearm and gang enhancement allegations. Montoya pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

On May 10, 2011, the information was amended by interlineation to add a single count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) and an allegation that Montoya furnished a firearm to another in furtherance of the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.4).

Following advisement of his rights and the consequences of entering a guilty plea, Montoya pleaded no contest to the burglary charge and admitted the truth of the new firearm allegation. The court found the plea was factually supported and knowing, intelligent and voluntary. It dismissed the remaining counts and special allegations and, consistent with the plea agreement, sentenced Montoya to the upper term of six years, plus two years on the firearm enhancement. (Pen. Code, §§ 461, subd. (a), 12022.4.) It awarded custody credits for 465 days actual custody and 70 days for good conduct. Pursuant to Montoya's motion to correct the custody credits, the court later awarded 519 actual and 77 local good conduct days.

The trial court ordered Montoya to pay $40 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a restitution fine of $200 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), and a $200 parole revocation fine, which was stayed (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and to provide biological samples upon request (Pen. Code, § 296).

Defendant timely appealed but did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On November 17, 2011, we sent letters to defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate record to defendant and advising defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. To date, defendant has not responded.

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." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) We have examined the entire record and have found that no arguable issues of any sort exist, let alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We are satisfied that defendant's appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

JOHNSON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Montoya

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Jan 26, 2012
B234602 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Montoya

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS A. MONTOYA, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jan 26, 2012

Citations

B234602 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)