People v. Ochoa CA2/5

Filed 11/7/25 P. v. Ochoa CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B340342

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA108062) v.

CARLOS OCHOA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Scott T. Millington, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

An information charged Carlos Ochoa with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) with associated aggravating factors (Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subds. (a)(1) & (2). Ochoa filed a motion for mental health diversion (§ 1001.36), which the prosecution opposed. The court held a hearing on the matter and denied Ochoa’s motion. Pursuant to an open plea, Ochoa pleaded no contest to the assault charge and admitted the aggravating factors. The trial court sentenced Ochoa to a suspended low term of two years in prison, and awarded him a total of 730 days of custody credit, which resulted in Ochoa’s immediate release for time served. Ochoa filed a timely notice of appeal. He requested a certificate of probable cause on the ground that the trial court wrongly denied his motion for mental health diversion. The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause. 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 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the record. On September 29, 2025, we advised Ochoa by letter 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 to identify issues that do not affect the validity of the plea. We are satisfied no such arguable issues exist and that Ochoa’s counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)