People v. Lacroix CA4/1

Filed 12/9/22 P. v. Lacroix CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080497

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE402172, SCE403469) DYLAN RIVERS LACROIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Dylan Rivers Lacroix, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dylan Rivers Lacroix pleaded guilty to crimes in two separate cases. He stipulated to a sentence of 12 years and eight months as part of the plea

agreement. After sentencing, Lacroix filed a timely notice of appeal but did

not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5). Specifically, Lacroix pleaded guilty as follows: Case No. SCE402172 Evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). Case No. SCE403469 Selling or furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health and Saf. Code, § 11353, subd. (c)) and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5, subd. (c)). Lacroix also admitted to a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). 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 the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Lacroix the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy brief entitled, “Jurisdictional challenge to the constitutionality of unlawful statutes.” It appears to be the same document that was filed in the trial court by a nonlawyer on Lacroix’s behalf. We have reviewed the document. It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Lacroix admitted he furnished a controlled substance to a minor who was 17 years old. He had intercourse with a minor three years younger than him, and he evaded a police officer with reckless