People v. Baldovinos CA4/1

── People v. Baldovinos CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Baldovinos CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D087046 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD308986) GAMALIEL BALDOVINOS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Pro, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. The appeal in this case is from a judgment and sentence following the terms of a plea agreement and stipulated sentence. Gamaliel Baldovinos pleaded guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) and (b)(1)). The parties stipulated Baldovinos would receive a 16-month sentence for this case, and that probation would be revoked on a trailing misdemeanor case.  Baldovinos was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Baldovinos filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Baldovinos that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Since this appeal arises from a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence, we will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baldovinos to the low term of 16-month in accordance with the plea agreement. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Baldovinos in this appeal. 2  DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR: KELETY, Acting P. J. RUBIN, J. * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3