People v. Rodarte CA4/1

Filed 8/25/20 P. v. Rodarte CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076659

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD280163)

OSVALDO RODARTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Karissa Adame, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Osvaldo Rodarte entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Under the terms of the agreement Rodarte pleaded guilty to one

count of sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (d)). Rodarte also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The parties stipulated to a sentence of eight years in prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Rodarte was sentenced to an eight-year term as stipulated in the plea agreement. Rodarte filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Rodarte the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In the change of plea form Rodarte stated: “I unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse act with a minor under 16 years or younger and while I was 21 years old or older. I admit I have a juvenile strike prior.” DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified possible issues that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did Rodarte voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently enter into the plea agreement; 2. Was the stipulated sentence lawful; 3. Can Rodarte challenge the use of the strike prior on appeal; 4. Was there a factual basis for the plea; and