People v. Vallier CA2/8

Filed 10/28/20 P. v. Vallier CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B299002

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA475095) v.

CARL ANTHONY VALLIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed.

Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Carl Anthony Vallier’s counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but raising no issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently and to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. Vallier submitted supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the briefs and the entire record. We find no arguable issues exist. We affirm. All statutory citations are to the Penal Code. I The underlying facts of the case are not pertinent so we give only a brief overview. According to the probation report, on April 27, 2018, police officers went to a freeway off-ramp in Los Angeles where a motorist had reported indecent exposure. The officers found Vallier sitting with his genitalia exposed. A felony complaint alleged Vallier committed one count of indecent exposure after a prior conviction for indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. 1) and alleged he had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had two serious felony convictions that qualified as strikes (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). On March 12, 2019, Vallier entered a plea agreement that involved another case, case No. BA468119, and the case at issue in this appeal, case No. BA475095. The other case was for failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290.015, subd. (a)). The prosecution explained, “[t]he offer that we are making is that you plead to count 1 in BA468119, you would be sentenced to 16 months, doubled, for a total of 32 months, and you plead to count 1 in BA475095, for a consecutive 16 months.” Vallier agreed he understood and wanted to accept the deal.