People v. Tolentinolopez CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/17/24 P. v. Tolentinolopez CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B330649
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Superior Court No.
v. BA507188
ANDREW TOLENTINOLOPEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Robert C. Vanderet, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.
Four victims were robbed at gunpoint. A February 2023
information charged Defendant Andrew Tolentinolopez and
others with four counts of second degree robbery—felonies
designated serious and violent. The information listed
aggravating circumstances of the offenses.
In April 2023, Defendant pleaded no contest to one robbery
count, along with two codefendants. The prosecutor advised him
of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea.
Defendant waived these rights and entered the plea. His trial
counsel joined and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based
on the police reports and preliminary hearing transcript.
The trial court accepted Defendant’s plea and dismissed the
remaining counts. The court sentenced him to the agreed term of
two years in state prison, the low term on the one robbery count.
The court also imposed fines and fees totaling $370, excluding a
stayed parole revocation restitution fine.
Defense counsel argued her client was indigent and asked
the court to stay or not impose the fines and fees. When the court
declined, counsel requested a certificate of probable cause to file
an appeal. The court again declined, and counsel said she would
appeal anyway.
Defendant’s notice of appeal specified his appeal was based
on the sentence or other matters postdating his plea that did not
affect its validity.
In November 2023, appointed appellate counsel submitted
to the trial court an informal motion to vacate or stay the fines
and fees. The motion clarified that the sole issue on appeal was
the imposition of fines and fees despite Defendant’s inability to
pay, which does not require a certificate of probable cause.
2
In January 2024, the trial court granted the motion and
directed the clerk to prepare an amended Abstract of Judgment.
Defendant’s appellate counsel then filed an opening brief
raising no issues and asking this court to review the record
independently under Wende. Counsel also advised Defendant of
his right to file a supplemental brief for us to consider.
Defendant did not file a response.
We have examined the entire appellate record. We
commend Defendant’s counsel for efficiently resolving the fees
issue at the trial court. We are satisfied counsel fully complied
with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
3