People v. Jaramillo CA6
Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Jaramillo CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H050779 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CR001958)
v.
JOSE ISABEL VIRGEN JARAMILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Jose Isabel Virgen Jaramillo pleaded no contest to 18 counts involving sex crimes against children. On May 26, 2022, he was sentenced to 227 years to life. On January 30, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal, which was dated January 9, 2023, regarding the judgment. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days.1 We also requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding why this
1 Defendant sent this court a letter that was written in Spanish. This court sent the letter to defendant’s appointed counsel, who agreed to translate it. Appointed counsel subsequently notified this court that “[a]fter translating the letter, the letter does not appear to be a supplemental brief but instead seems to be directed towards [appointed counsel] and asks for further guidance.” Appointed counsel indicated to this court that he would write to defendant to “again explain the Wende procedure.”
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In supplemental briefing, the parties agree that the notice of appeal is untimely and that dismissal is appropriate. As defendant’s January 30, 2023 notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the May 26, 2022 judgment, the notice of appeal is untimely and we will dismiss the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.
2
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)