People v. Filorio CA2/2

Filed 10/3/24 P. v. Filorio CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337089

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA160630) v.

ALBERTO FILORIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Defendant and appellant Alberto Filorio (defendant) appeals the judgment entered after sentence was imposed upon his violation of probation. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. After defendant was notified of his counsel’s brief he filed his own letter brief, asserting that his plea of no contest to assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury was invalid and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We have reviewed the entire record and find defendant’s contentions are not amenable to review on appeal. Finding no other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In 2023 defendant was charged with second degree robbery and entered into a plea agreement that allowed him to instead plead no contest to a charge of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4). In exchange, defendant was to be placed on two years of formal probation and dismissal of the robbery charge. Conditions of probation included completion of a one year drug treatment program as directed by the Probation Department. The following month defendant pled no contest to a new misdemeanor charge and admitted a probation violation in this case. The trial court imposed and stayed a middle term sentence of three years in prison, and reinstated probation. Three months later, defendant was alleged to have violated probation by failing to enroll in a drug treatment program. Defendant admitted the violation and sentencing was scheduled for January 23, 2024. On that date defendant was permitted to represent himself. The trial court rejected defendant’s request for a retrial and to be reinstated on probation, the court revoked probation, lifted the stay of execution, and ordered defendant to serve the three-year prison term. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The box on the notice of appeal stating: “This appeal challenges the validity of the plea or admission,” and the box requesting a certificate of probable cause were checked. The court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.