Filed 4/22/21 P. v. Jimenez CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERIC JIMENEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B304868
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA465055) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael D. Abzug, Judge. Affirmed.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Defendant and appellant Eric Jimenez pleaded no contest to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),[1] admitted the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and received the negotiated sentence of 25 years to life in prison. He then filed a request for a certificate of probable cause, seeking leave to appeal the trial court’s denial of his two requests to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. The trial court denied the request.[2]
Jimenez timely appealed. The notice of appeal indicated that the appeal was based solely on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea. On April 23, 2020, this court issued an order limiting the issues in this case to those not requiring a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On February 16, 2021, we advised Jimenez that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
“In the case of a judgment of conviction following a plea of guilty or no contest, section 1237.5 authorizes an appeal only as to a particular category of issues and requires that additional procedural steps be taken. That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650.) “t is settled that two types of issues may be raised in a guilty or nolo contendere plea appeal without issuance of a certificate: (1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.”[3] ([i]People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74 (Panizzon); see also People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) “‘[S]ection 1237.5 does not allow the reviewing court to hear the merits of issues going to the validity of the plea unless the defendant has obtained a certificate of probable cause, or has sought and obtained relief from default in the reviewing court.’ [Citation.]” (Panizzon, supra, at p. 75.)
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and that Jimenez’s counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
MOOR, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
BAKER, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] Jimenez filed a petition for writ of mandate from this court seeking an order directed at the trial court requiring it to issue the certificate of probable cause permitting appeal of the denial of his requests to represent himself. We summarily denied that petition. (Jimenez v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al. (Feb. 11, 2021) B306873).)
[3] The notice of appeal filed here did not indicate that it was based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5.
