Full Opinion

Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Ybarra CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088954 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF193475A) v. BENITO JUAREZ YBARRA, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Harrell, J. Defendant Benito Juarez Ybarra, Jr., pleaded no contest to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and, after violating his terms of probation, was sentenced to a four-year term in prison. Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claim of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant facts of the case. Defendant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On February 13, 2023, defendant approached Joe T. at an intersection, told Joe that he intended to kill him, and struck Joe’s hand with a shovel. Joe feared for his life. The District Attorney of Kern County filed an information on March 8, 2023, charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and threatening to commit a crime which would result in death or great bodily injury (§ 422; count 2). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) and had been convicted of two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations. On July 13, 2023, the trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion to amend the information to charge defendant with assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3). Defendant executed a “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form” (plea form) in which he agreed to plead no contest to count 3 and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. admit his two prior serious felony convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes law, in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement to recommend a two-year term of probation and to strike the prior convictions for purposes of punishment. The plea form further acknowledged that defendant had not been threatened, his plea was freely and voluntarily made, and he understood a plea of no contest was the same as a guilty plea for all purposes. The plea form also included an acknowledgement of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading no contest to the offense, as well as his statutory right to a preliminary hearing and the consequences of his plea, including receipt of the maximum penalty, fines, and restitution. The plea form also provided that defendant admitted he acted as described on the record and as stated in the police reports and waived each of his constitutional rights. In response to questioning by the trial court, defendant acknowledged he had read and understood the plea form and was willing to give up those rights. Counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based on the preliminary hearing transcript. Defendant then pleaded no contest to count 3 and admitted suffering two prior strike convictions. The court accepted the no contest plea and found that defendant was guilty, he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights and entered his plea, and the plea was supported by a factual basis. On August 10, 2023, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, struck defendant’s two prior strike convictions, placed defendant on a two-year term of probation conditioned upon serving 357 days in county jail, and ordered payment of victim restitution and all fines, fees, and assessments as set forth in the probation report. On September 11, 2023, the probation department filed a declaration attesting that defendant had been arrested for a violation of section 243 on August 15, 2023, and defendant failed to report the arrest. A second declaration was filed on April 19, 2024, attesting that defendant had violated his probation by failing to report to the probation department after his revocation hearing as directed by the court. Defendant denied the 3. allegations. Defendant requested a Marsden2 hearing on August 8, 2024, which the trial court granted but thereafter denied his request for new counsel. During the revocation hearing on September 16, 2024, Probation Officer Alvaro Leon testified that defendant was assigned to his caseload on August 10, 2023, when he was sentenced to two-year term of formal probation and ordered to report to probation within five days of his release from custody. Defendant failed to report to the probation office as directed. The court found defendant had violated his probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in prison.3 The court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) in an amount to be determined by probation, a $300 restitution fine (§ 1204.4, subd. (b)), a $300 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a stayed $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on November 18, 2024. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3 At the same time, defendant was also found in violation of his probation terms in two other separate cases and sentenced to concurrent three-year and 180-day terms. 4.