B341730_20250827

Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Hernandez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupa S. Goswami, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

On March 24, 2024, the district attorney filed a felony complaint, alleging Serena Hernandez committed the crime of grand theft from an elder or dependent adult by a caretaker. (Pen. Code,¹ § 368, subd. (e).) The complaint further alleged the victim was particularly vulnerable, within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3).

On October 8, 2024, Hernandez waived her rights to a preliminary hearing and trial, and she pleaded no contest to the charged offense. During the plea hearing, she informed the court that she had had sufficient time to talk to her attorney about the facts of the case, her rights, and her defenses, and she was changing her plea freely and voluntarily. The court accepted the plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Hernandez on formal probation for two years with terms and conditions, including that she perform 30 days of community labor and make restitution to the victim. The court imposed a total of $370 in statutory assessments and fines and scheduled a victim restitution hearing setting conference. The court explained that pursuant to the plea negotiation, Hernandez had agreed to admit liability for victim restitution in an amount that had not been finally determined but would be approximately $5,000.

Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. On November 8, 2024, this court issued an order limiting the scope of the appeal to issues appealable without a certificate of probable cause.

Thereafter, we appointed counsel to represent Hernandez in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues. This court notified Hernandez that she could submit a letter or brief stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions or arguments she wanted this court to consider.

Hernandez submitted a supplemental brief that we have read and considered. She contends she did not commit grand theft, asserting that the victim consented to her use of his credit card to make purchases for him. Additionally, she claims her trial counsel misled her and gave her no choice but to enter a plea. She also represents that her plea has adversely affected her income, education, housing, and other parts of her life, and notes that it resulted in the imposition of assessments, fines, and $5,000 in victim restitution.

A defendant who appeals following a no contest plea without a certificate of probable cause may only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676-677 & fn. 3.) There is no indication in the record before us that Hernandez filed a motion to suppress evidence or had any grounds to do so. Hernandez’s claims that she did not commit the crime to which she pleaded no contest, and that her trial counsel misled her and gave her no choice but to enter the plea, are barred because these claims arose before entry of the plea and are therefore not cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. As set forth above, the trial court denied Hernandez’s request for a certificate of probable cause.² Moreover, neither Hernandez’s supplemental brief nor the record suggests any cognizable ground for appeal that arose after entry of the plea. Therefore, “[i]n the absence of a certificate [of probable cause, this] appeal is inoperative” and must be dismissed. (People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 245.)

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Hernandez’s counsel has complied with his responsibilities and there are no arguable issues to be briefed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

M. KIM, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.