People v. Paredes CA3

Filed 8/4/25 P. v. Paredes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102039

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23F9787)

v.

ANTONIO GABRIEL PAREDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Antonio Gabriel Paredes filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in negotiating his plea deal. We conclude that the absence of a certificate of probable cause forecloses this claim. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and thus affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND In 2023, the victim reported that someone entered his home while he and his roommate were out and stole thousands of dollars’ worth of items. Upon reviewing his Ring camera footage, the victim identified his neighbor, defendant, as the perpetrator. The People charged defendant with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459), obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) and alleged multiple prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and prior strike convictions. Defendant ultimately pled no contest to first degree residential burglary and admitted he had a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. As part of the plea agreement, defendant stipulated to an aggregate sentence of 17 years, comprised of 12 years for the first degree residential burglary (the upper term doubled due to the prior strike) plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction. At the change of plea hearing, the trial court asked defendant whether his attorney had explained to him the terms of the plea; defendant responded yes. The court explained that defendant was agreeing to a 17-year sentence, which included an upper-term sentence, and that defendant would be “stipulating that there are aggravating factors.” On April 11, 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant to 17 years imprisonment, in accordance with the negotiated plea. On August 26, 2024, defendant filed a motion for relief due to discrimination (§ 745, subd. (a)(3)), alleging he was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated. On September 13, 2024, defendant requested permission from this court to file a notice of appeal more than 60 days after judgment pursuant to the constructive filing