Filed 2/17/21 P. v. Lopez CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FELIX LOPEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F080558
(Super. Ct. No. M19926494)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. Idiart, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Felix Lopez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending (1) his indecent exposure should be resentenced as a misdemeanor without a sex offender registration requirement, (2) he had the right to express his religious beliefs, and (3) at most, he violated a city ordinance by “parading in the nude without a permit.” Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2019, an employee of a discount store saw defendant standing outside naked and looking at her. He did not move until he saw her pull out her phone to call the police. When officers arrived, defendant said he was not naked and was only walking back and forth in the area.
On November 27, 2019, defendant pled no contest to felony indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1;[1] count 1) and admitted having suffered a prior conviction under the same statute. The trial court dismissed count 2 and indicated a 16‑month sentence lid.
On December 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, awarded credits, and imposed various fines and fees. The court ordered him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290.
On December 31, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
* Before Hill, P.J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
