People v. Contreras CA2/5

Filed 9/15/14 P. v. Contreras CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B252269

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA385634) v.

PATRICK CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed. Maria Leftwich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. INTRODUCTION In an information, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County charged defendant and appellant Patrick Contreras with two counts of chop shop operation (Veh. Code, § 10801), two counts of receiving stolen property—a vehicle—with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5), insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (b)(1)), and perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of chop shop operation. Under the plea agreement, defendant received a suspended high term sentence of four years in county

jail and was placed on probation for five years under various terms and conditions. The remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 regarding restitution as to the remaining counts. The trial court conducted a restitution hearing. Defendant moved to withdraw his plea based in part on his potential restitution liability for a destroyed Porsche.1 The trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea and requesting a certificate of probable cause as to the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court granted the request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On April 22, 2014, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not file a responsive brief or letter. We affirm.