People v. Gonzales CA2/6

Filed 5/22/25 P. v. Gonzales CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337578 (Super. Ct. No. 21CR06864) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

LUIS JIMENEZ GONZALES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Luis Jimenez Gonzales, Jr. appeals an order denying his post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We appointed counsel to represent him. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed a supplemental brief raising no meritorious issues. We will dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant is a three-strike offender. He was charged with felony criminal threats and dissuading a witness following a

verbal altercation with an ex-girlfriend in July of 2021. A year later he settled with prosecutors on the following terms: (1) he would plead guilty to the charges and admit a prior strike and aggravating circumstances; (2) the court would impose an aggregate prison term of seven years, suspended for a domestic violence probation term of three years; (3) it would strike a prior strike conviction; (4) appellant would waive custody credits; and (5) the court would immediately release him from custody on a Cruz waiver.1 He agreed his guilty plea would stand if he violated the waiver’s conditions and would result in a prison sentence. The court released him and ordered him to return for sentencing on August 31, 2022. Appellant was arrested four days after his release and charged with obstructing an officer. (Pen. Code, § 148).2 He returned to court on August 5, 2022, and pleaded guilty to the new charge. The court imposed a term of 120 days in jail and postponed sentencing on the criminal threats case to September 21. It told appellant, “We are going to give you another opportunity. Any violations of probation or law, you are going to get the state prison sentence. The People have made it known prior to going on the record . . . that they think you should go to state prison now because that was the deal. But I have – we are going to give you one more chance. Given the nature of the new offense and the circumstances that were related [sic] to me