People v. Smith CA2/2

Filed 8/16/23 P. v. Smith CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, B328488
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA079754,
v. BR055479)
DONNELL SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant Donnell Smith (defendant)
appeals from the judgment of conviction following his plea of no
contest. After his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues,
we directed counsel to send defendant the record of appeal and a
copy of counsel’s brief. Defendant then had leave to file, within
30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument
he might wish us to consider. That time has passed, and
defendant submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the
entire record and, finding no arguable issues, we affirm the
judgment.
Defendant was charged on August 4, 2021, with felony
robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.1 The district
attorney alleged that defendant unlawfully took, by force and
fear, personal property from Mohamed N. on August 16, 2020.
The complaint was later amended to add a count for battery in
violation of section 242.
On the date set for trial, defendant entered a plea of no
contest to the battery charge. The court, pursuant to the plea
agreement, ordered imposition of sentence suspended and
defendant was placed on summary probation for 12 months. As
terms and conditions of probation defendant was ordered to serve
41 days in county jail less credit of 41 days, ordered to pay
restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subd. (f), and ordered to
stay at least 400 yards from Nagi’s Electronics in Palmdale.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, but
filed a timely notice of appeal of his conviction. Upon receipt of
his notice of appeal, this court entered an order limiting the
appeal to issues that do not require a certificate of probable
cause. Section 1237.5 states that “ ‘[n]o appeal shall be taken by
the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty
or nolo contendere . . .’ in the absence of a certificate of probable
cause.” (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 681.) The sole
exception to this requirement applies when the appeal is taken
“ . . . solely on noncertificate grounds, which go to postplea
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code,
unless otherwise indicated.
2
matters not challenging his plea's validity and/or matters
involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested
pursuant to section 1538.5.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th
1084, 1096.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that
defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude
defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received an adequate and
effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in
this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
3