People v. Arce CA2/5

Filed 9/18/25 P. v. Arce CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B344802

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA499946) v.

LUIS ARCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Luis Arce appeals from his conviction by no contest plea of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a), count 1) and admission of an associated firearm allegation (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)) and a prior convictions of a strike offense under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). This case comes before us for review under the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442 (Wende). The trial court sentenced Arce to the negotiated term of 15 years to life in prison doubled to 30 years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus 10 years for the firearm allegation. Arce timely appealed and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. We issued an order limiting the appeal to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause, and appointed counsel. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the record. On August 12, 2025, we advised Arce that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and that Arce’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)