People v. Barrera CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 3/3/23 P. v. Barrera CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079919
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF2001279)
JOEL ALEXANDER BARRERA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Joel Alexander Barrera appeals from a judgment of
conviction after pleading guilty on six felony counts. For the reasons set forth post, we
affirm the judgment.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 13, 2021, an information charged defendant with committing lewd
and lascivious acts against Jane Doe, a minor under 14 years of age, under Penal Code
section 288, subdivision (a): (1) on or about September 24, 2009, through September 23,
2011, (counts 1-3); (2) on or about December 24, 2017 (count 4); and (3) on or about
October 16, 2015, through December 23, 2017 (counts 5, 6). The information also
alleged that defendant violated Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1), by committing
lewd and lascivious acts against Jane Doe, who was a child 14 or 15 years old, and more
than 10 years younger that defendant (count 7). As to counts 1 through 6, the information
further alleged that defendant committed a qualifying sex offense under Penal Code
section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4).
On August 19, 2022, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 through 6.1 Thereafter, the
trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in state prison, as follows: the upper term of
eight years for count 1, and 2 years each (one-third the middle term of six years) for
counts 2 through 6, with 563 days custody credit, including 490 actual days and 73 work
days under Penal Code section 2933.1. The court then found that defendant was unable
to pay fines and fees. The court imposed and stayed execution of a $300 restitution fine
under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). Moreover, the court struck the
enhancements for counts 1 through 6, and dismissed count 7, in the interest of justice
under section 1385.
1 Although counts 4 through 6 occurred in Los Angeles County, defendant waived
any jurisdictional issues.
2
On September 30, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On October 3,
2022, the trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant admitted to committing the acts as alleged in the information, counts 1
through 6.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified
the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
“Did the court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the Los Angeles County charges
violate appellant’s rights under the vicinage clause of the Six Amendment to the United
States Constitution? (See generally People v. Gbadebo-Soda (1995) 28 Cal.App.4th 160,
169-173 [waiver of vicinage right].)”
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue
exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4