People v. Solorio CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 10/22/21 P. v. Solorio CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E076997 v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV19002932)

MICHAEL ALEXIS SOLORIO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael R.

Libutti, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant and appellant Michael Alexis Solorio pled no contest to two felony counts. He admitted a violation of California Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), lewd or lascivious acts with a child, and he admitted a violation of California Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a), 1 continuous sexual abuse of a child.. The parties agreed to a particular length of prison time (22 years), and they agreed to some other sentencing matters.

At his plea hearing, Solorio confirmed that he understood the agreement and its particular terms, then he entered his pleas. The trial court found that Solorio had entered his pleas freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The parties stipulated that the police reports provided a factual basis for the pleas, and the trial court found one. Our appellate record contains a probation report that contains facts that would provide a factual basis, where the victims were daughters of Solorio’s friend.

At sentencing, the trial court imposed the agreed amount of prison time.

Solorio received credit for time served. The People dismissed ten other charges pursuant to the parties’ agreement.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) We advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief, and he did not do so.

We have no certificate of probable cause in this case. (See Penal Code § 1237.5.) We can see no basis for an appellate challenge to either the plea or sentence. (See Cal. Rules of Court. rule. 8.304 (b).) We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

2 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL J.

We concur:

MILLER Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON J.