People v. Cruz CA5

Filed 10/23/26 P. v. Cruz CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.RNIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090503 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19904567) v. PETER CRUZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Jr., Judge. Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.  INTRODUCTION In an amended information, defendant Peter Cruz was charged with three counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 1, 2, 4),1 and one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child under 10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 3). The charges pertained to three separate victims. An aggravating circumstance was alleged under the One Strike law (§ 667.61) as to counts 1, 2 and 4, and two aggravating sentencing factors were alleged under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421.2 Shortly after opening arguments were presented in defendant’s jury trial, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2, and admitted the aggravating sentencing factors alleged under rule 4.421(a)(1) and (a)(3). In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts and the One Strike law aggravating circumstances, and the parties stipulated to a 10-year aggregate sentence. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence of 10 years as follows: as to count 1, the court imposed the upper term of eight years (§ 288, subd. (a)); as to count 2, the court imposed a consecutive term of two years (one-third the six-year middle term) (§ 288, subd. (a)). Defendant filed a notice of appeal, but did not seek a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. BACKGROUND3 S.D. was interviewed by police in April 2019, where she disclosed that from the age of seven years old until she was 11 or 12 years old, defendant sexually abused her, including oral copulation and digital penetration. Defendant is S.D.’s stepgrandfather, 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 3 The facts related to the offenses are drawn from testimony at the preliminary hearing, which the parties agreed provided a factual basis for the plea, and the People’s restitution brief. 2. with whom she was living. When the abuse was reported, S.D. was removed from her home. In June 2019, police responded to a call related to possible sexual assault involving S.D.’s younger sister, A.T. A.T.’s mother was told by her son, G.D., that he walked into a room in the house and saw defendant quickly toss or push A.T. away. A.T. told her mother that defendant had licked her vaginal area, and that he put his nose in her crotch. During an interview, A.T. said defendant had pulled her pants down and picked her upside down; he touched her vagina, but she did not know what he used to touch her. She said he had touched her private parts many times before. A sexual assault response team exam was performed on A.T., and defendant’s DNA was found on her vagina and anus. After defendant’s arrest related to his conduct with S.D. and A.T., defendant’s friend and the friend’s 13-year-old daughter (A.Y.) moved in with defendant. A.Y. disclosed to her father and to a student teacher that defendant had touched her inappropriately three times in 2019. A.Y. described the first incident occurred when defendant placed his open palm on the couch just before A.Y. sat down, contacting her buttocks. Later the same day, during a trip to the grocery store, defendant was in the car alone with A.Y. and began running his fingers through her hair, rubbing her bare inner thigh and asking if she had intercourse with her boyfriend. The third incident occurred about a month later, when defendant again placed his open palm on the couch as A.Y. sat down. Shortly after opening arguments were presented in defendant’s jury trial, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2, and admitted the aggravating sentencing factors alleged under rule 4.421(a)(1) and (3). In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts and the One Strike law aggravating circumstance allegations, and the parties stipulated to a 10-year sentence. The parties also agreed that defendant could 3. remain out of custody pending sentencing so long as he reported to probation and submitted to GPS monitoring. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence of 10 years as follows: as to count 1, the court imposed the upper term of eight years (§ 288, subd. (a)); as to count 2, the court imposed a consecutive term of two years (one-third the six-year middle term) (§ 288, subd. (a)). The court awarded 90 days of custody credits. The court imposed a restitution fine of $3,000 (§ 1202.4), and imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine of $3,000 (§ 1202.45); the court also imposed and suspended a fine of $300 under section 290.3; and the court imposed ancillary court assessments of $80 and $60 under Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), and Government Code section 70737, sudivision (a)(1), respectively.4 DISCUSSION The opening brief filed by appellate counsel pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raises no arguable issues; rather, it asks us to independently review the entire record. Following receipt of the Wende brief, this court notified defendant he had the right to file a brief with this court stating any grounds on appeal that he wished us to consider. Defendant did not file a brief. Pursuant to section 1237.5, no appeal may be taken from a plea of guilty or no contest without first filing a written statement “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and the trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal. (Id., subds. (a), (b); see rule 8.304(b)(1)(A).) Here, a certificate of probable cause was required, but not sought. Any issues regarding the validity of defendant’s plea are not cognizable. (See People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73 [a defendant who contests 4 The issue of direct victim restitution was reserved, a hearing was subsequently held, and victim restitution was awarded. By separate appeal, defendant challenges the victim restitution order. (See People v. Cruz (Oct. 23, 2026, F090649) [nonpub.opn].) 4. sentence to which he agreed as part of a plea is, in substance, attacking the validity of the plea, which requires compliance with § 1237.5].) Without a certificate of probable cause, our review is limited “to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” (Rule 8.304(b)(3).) We have undertaken an examination of the entire record, and 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. 5.