People v. Vargas CA1/5

Filed 12/21/20 P. v. Vargas CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A159781 v.

FELIPE AMARO VARGAS, (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SCR724937)

Felipe Amaro Vargas appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered no contest pleas to multiple offenses. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

1

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Vargas was charged in a complaint with assault with intent to commit a sex crime against a victim under 18 years of age in violation of Penal Code section 220, subdivision (a)(2) (counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21); lewd acts upon a child 14 or 15 years of age by an offender more than 10 years older than the child in violation of section 288, subdivision (c)(1) (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22); dissuading a witness from reporting a crime in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) (count 23); contacting a minor to commit a sexual offense in violation of section 288.3, subdivision (a) (counts 24 and 25); and distributing or showing pornography to a minor in violation of section 288.2, subdivision (a)(2) (count 26).1 At his arraignment, Vargas pled not guilty to all counts and denied all special allegations and enhancements. On September 16, 2019, Vargas signed a Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea form, which was also signed by defense counsel and a Spanish language interpreter. The form indicated that Vargas would plead no contest to a violation of section 220, subdivision (a)(2) with a maximum penalty of nine years (count 1), a violation of section 288, subdivision (c) with a maximum penalty of three years (count 22), and a violation of section 288.2, subdivision (a)(2) with a maximum penalty of three years (count 26), and that the maximum total punishment would be 12 years eight months “accounting for [sections] 667.6, 1170, and 1170.1.” The rest of the charges would be dismissed. Vargas acknowledged that he was pleading “open” and the court had discretion to impose sentence up to the maximum punishment. He further acknowledged that he was freely and voluntarily waiving his rights to