People v. Jaramillo CA6 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Jaramillo CA6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050779
    (Monterey County
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. 21CR001958)
    v.
    JOSE ISABEL VIRGEN JARAMILLO,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Defendant Jose Isabel Virgen Jaramillo pleaded no contest to 18 counts involving
    sex crimes against children. On May 26, 2022, he was sentenced to 227 years to life. On
    January 30, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal, which was dated January 9, 2023,
    regarding the judgment.
    On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We
    notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within
    30 days.1 We also requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding why this
    1
    Defendant sent this court a letter that was written in Spanish. This court sent the
    letter to defendant’s appointed counsel, who agreed to translate it. Appointed counsel
    subsequently notified this court that “[a]fter translating the letter, the letter does not
    appear to be a supplemental brief but instead seems to be directed towards [appointed
    counsel] and asks for further guidance.” Appointed counsel indicated to this court that he
    would write to defendant to “again explain the Wende procedure.”
    appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In supplemental briefing, the parties agree
    that the notice of appeal is untimely and that dismissal is appropriate. As defendant’s
    January 30, 2023 notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the May 26, 2022
    judgment, the notice of appeal is untimely and we will dismiss the appeal. (Cal. Rules of
    Court, rule 8.308(a).)
    DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed.
    2
    BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.
    WE CONCUR:
    WILSON, J.
    ADAMS, J.*
    People v. Jaramillo
    H050779
    *
    Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
    pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H050779

Filed Date: 1/25/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/26/2024