People v. Picazo CA6

Filed 11/12/25 P. v. Picazo CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H053161 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24CR006481)

v.

ALEJANDRO PACHECO PICAZO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Alejandro Pacheco Picazo pleaded no contest to vandalism and violating a criminal protective order. The trial court sentenced Picazo to 16 months in county jail and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, Picazo’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issues. This court notified Picazo of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Picazo responded with a short handwritten note asking that his sentence be reduced. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have determined that there are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to Picazo. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment with one modification ordered to correct a clerical error.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to a probation officer’s presentence report, Picazo struck the garage door at his parents’ home several times with a tire iron, causing damage. Days later, police arrested Picazo at his parents’ house after responding to a reported battery. At the time of the latter incident, Picazo was subject to a court order to stay away from his sister, who was present at the home. The prosecution charged Picazo by complaint with two counts: felony vandalism of property worth more than $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1))1; and misdemeanor violation of a criminal protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). Picazo was initially found incompetent to stand trial before his competency was declared restored and proceedings were reinstated. Picazo pleaded no contest to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement, along with pleading no contest to misdemeanor violating a domestic violence protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(4)) in another case. As part of the plea agreement, Picazo agreed to waive “the right to appeal my conviction, the judgment, and any other orders previously issued by this court.” Picazo confirmed this waiver in a colloquy with the trial court. The trial court sentenced Picazo to the negotiated term of 16 months in addition to imposing various fines and fees. Picazo timely appealed; however, he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. II. DISCUSSION Picazo waived his right to appeal from the judgment. “It is well settled that an express waiver of the right to appeal in a negotiated plea agreement is valid and enforceable, provided that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. [Citations.]” (People v. Orellana (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 319, 325.) In addition, Picazo did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o