People v. Alvares CA1/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/24/23 P. v. Alvares CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A167155
v.
SESAR ANTHONY ALVARES, (Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. SCR-7436941)
Defendant and Appellant.
Sesar Anthony Alvares appealed after he was sentenced following his
plea to two domestic-violence charges. His appellate attorney has asked the
court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Alvares was charged by felony information with various domestic-
violence charges related to injuring two women he was dating on five
separate occasions, in December 2019 and in February, May, and
September 2020 (the first victim), as well as in January 2021 (the second
victim). The information further alleged that Alvares had suffered a prior
strike and a prior serious felony.
In May 2022 Alvares pleaded no contest to two counts of willful
infliction of corporal injury resulting in traumatic condition of someone with
1
whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 in
connection with the incidents in September 2020 and January 2021, and he
admitted the prior strike. Alvares also stipulated that certain aggravating
factors existed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1) [great violence], (a)(3)
[particularly vulnerable victim], (b)(1) [violent conduct indicating danger to
society], (b)(2) [prior conviction], (b)(3) [prior prison term].) Under a plea
agreement, an enhancement and other charges were dismissed.
Before sentencing, in October 2022, Alvares filed a motion to strike his
previous strike conviction under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court
(Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The motion referred to then-recent changes
to section 1385 and argued that four factors weighed in favor of dismissing
the strike in the furtherance of justice. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(D) [offense
connected to mental illness], (c)(2)(E) [offense connected to prior victimization
or childhood trauma], (c)(2)(F) [offense not a violent felony as defined in
§ 667.5, subd. (c)], (c)(2)(H) [enhancement based on prior conviction over five
years old].) The People opposed the motion.
The trial court denied the Romero motion. But whereas the probation
department recommended that Alvares receive the upper term (which would
have resulted in a total prison term of 10 years), the trial court found there to
be mitigating circumstances. The court thus sentenced Alvares to the
midterm of three years on one of the counts, plus one third the midterm of
one year on the other count, doubled because of the strike, for a total of eight
years in prison. The court also imposed the minimum fine under
section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and imposed various other fines and fees.
Alvares timely appealed. The trial court granted his request for a
certificate of probable cause on the issue of whether the court abused its
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
discretion in denying Alvares’s Romero motion. (§ 1237.5 [requirement for
certificate of probable cause when appealing following plea]; but see Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B) [no certificate necessary when appeal
challenges sentence or other matters occurring after plea that do not affect
plea’s validity], People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 869–870 [no
certificate of probable cause needed to argue that trial court abused its
discretion in failing to strike a prior conviction].)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike
Alvares’s previous strike, and the sentence imposed likewise was authorized
and not an abuse of discretion. The fines and fees imposed also were
authorized. We find no arguable issues.
The judgement is affirmed.
3
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Banke, J.
_________________________
Getty, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Solano, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
People v. Alvares A167155
4