People v. Moralez CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: E082872
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 1/28/25 P. v. Moralez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082872

v. (Super.Ct.No. FMB23000072)

DENNIS DELGADO MORALEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher S.

Pallone. Affirmed.

Michelle T. LiVecchi-Raufi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Dennis Delgado Moralez appeals from a judgment

granting him two years of felony probation, after he pled guilty to one count of criminal

threats. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by information with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.

Code1, § 245, subd. (a)(1), counts 1 and 2), and criminal threats (§ 422, count 3). The

information also alleged a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), prior strike

convictions (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subd. (b)-(i)), and prior serious felony

convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to

count 3. In exchange, the court placed him on probation for a period of two years under

specified conditions. The People moved to dismiss the remaining counts and allegations,

and the court granted the motion.

On December 22, 2023, defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal, in propria

persona, challenging the probation condition that required him to “[r]egister with law

enforcement pursuant to H&S [Health & Safety Code] 11590/11594 and provide proof to

the Probation Officer, as ordered by the court.” (Hereinafter, the probation condition.)

He claimed he “did not enter into a plea agreement with the prosecutor of having to

register with law-enforcement pursuant to any Health and Safety Codes.” Defendant

asked this court to strike the probation condition.

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 On June 19, 2024, appellate counsel filed a letter requesting the superior court to

remove the probation condition, noting that Health and Safety Code section 11590 was

repealed effective January 1, 2020, so the condition was no longer legally valid. (See

appellate counsel’s letter dated June 19, 2024.) On July 26, 2024, the court granted the

request and struck the probation condition.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to

undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has done. Defendant discusses the facts of the case, including details about the victim

and his conduct and background. He then states the probation condition requiring him to

register with law enforcement under certain Health and Safety Codes “gave rise to this

appeal.” Defendant acknowledges that the “issue was corrected.”

Defendant additionally states that, during the course of this appeal, he “discovered

a couple of legal issues” and claims that the prosecutor was “vindictive towards [him]”

and that the victim was previously arrested and charged with various offenses and also

violated his parole. Defendant then claims the victim was “shown leniency” by the

prosecutor in similar circumstances to his, and the prosecutor overcharged him

3 [defendant] in this case, due to racial discrimination. Defendant “requests relief as this

Court deems just and proper in the furtherance of justice.”

Defendant’s notice of appeal challenges the court’s order requiring him to register

with law enforcement pursuant to Health & Safety Code sections 11590/11594. He asked

this court to strike the probation condition. However, as he acknowledges, the issue on

appeal has been resolved, since the trial court subsequently struck the disputed probation

condition. Further, because defendant entered a guilty plea and did not obtain a

certificate of probable cause, we may only entertain an appeal based on (1) “‘[g]rounds

that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity,’” or (2) “‘[t]he

denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.’” (People v.

Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 299, fn. 2.) The additional issues identified by

defendant fall outside the permissible scope of appeal.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

MILLER J.