People v. Valenzuela CA6

Filed 12/3/25 P. v. Valenzuela CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H052929 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24CR001786)

v.

NICOLAS UBALDO VALENZUELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nicolas Ubaldo Valenzuela appeals from a final judgment in a criminal action. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant responded by filing a one-page handwritten supplemental brief. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the entire record. Finding an arguable issue concerning the trial court’s decision not to dismiss defendant’s prior strike conviction, we invited supplemental briefing from both counsel. In this opinion, we discuss defendant’s contentions and explain why we will affirm the judgment. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS In February 2024, defendant led officers on a high-speed chase after they attempted to conduct a traffic stop on his car. During the chase, he reached a speed of 130 miles per hour. When officers eventually stopped the car and arrested defendant, they found a loaded gun on the floor of the car and drugs in defendant’s socks.

Defendant was charged with possessing a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 1), possessing a firearm as a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and reckless evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3). It was alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction. Five aggravating circumstances were also alleged: (1) that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)); (2) that defendant was armed with a weapon when the crime was committed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2)); (3) that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous or of increasing seriousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)); (4) that defendant had served a prior prison term (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)); and (5) that defendant’s prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, post-release community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(5)). After a motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 2 and 3. He admitted the prior strike conviction and one prior prison term. He also waived the right to appeal his convictions and any orders issued before the date of the plea. The parties stipulated that defendant could move to dismiss his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). As the trial court and the parties described the agreement, defendant would receive a sentence of up to four years in prison if the court denied his Romero motion; if the court granted the Romero motion, it could impose a sentence of up to four years in prison or place defendant on probation. At the hearing on the Romero motion, defense counsel informed the trial court that defendant recently married; his wife and mother were present at the hearing; he was participating in various programs; and he was working in construction. Defense counsel argued: “And so our position is that, hopefully, the Court will give him a chance, just 2