Background
Gabriel Angel Avendano appealed after pleading no contest to felony child abuse and admitting an enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury on a child under five years old. According to the probation report summarized by the court, the 13-month-old child was taken to a hospital on August 17, 2021, with multiple rib fractures, fractured collarbones, and bruised lungs. The child’s mother reported that Avendano sometimes cared for the child, played roughly with him, and had offered explanations for earlier lip and head injuries. The opinion also recounts Avendano’s apologetic statements at the hospital and his later request to speak with an attorney when detectives sought an interview.
A complaint filed on July 11, 2023, charged child abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily injury or death and alleged the enhancement. An arrest warrant was issued on July 18, 2023, and Avendano was arrested on October 17, 2024; his arraignment was continued on October 22, 2024, and he was released on pretrial release. On November 4, 2025, Avendano entered a West plea of no contest and admitted the enhancement under an agreement with a nine-year sentencing lid. On January 27, 2026, the trial court imposed consecutive middle terms of four years for child abuse and five years for the enhancement, totaling nine years in prison. It also awarded six days of actual presentence custody credit, issued a protective order, and imposed a restitution fine of $2,700, a stayed parole revocation restitution fine of $2,700, a court operations assessment of $40, and a court facilities assessment of $30. Avendano filed a timely notice of appeal, but the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
The Court’s Holding
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende requesting independent review and declared that Avendano had been advised of his right to submit his own brief. The Court of Appeal also invited additional briefing by letter dated July 10, 2026, allowing 30 days to respond, but Avendano filed nothing. Acting Presiding Justice Detjen and Justices Meehan and Sandhu reviewed the entire record under Wende and People v. Kelly and found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Avendano.
The court separately explained the effect of the missing certificate of probable cause. Penal Code section 1237.5 generally requires a written statement showing grounds going to the legality of the proceedings and a certificate before an appeal may be taken from a guilty or no-contest plea. Because denial of such a certificate must be challenged through a petition for writ of mandate, and Avendano had not sought or obtained that relief, issues concerning the validity of his plea were not cognizable. Review therefore remained limited to issues that do not require a certificate.
Within that limited review, the court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error warranting a more favorable outcome. It affirmed the judgment without changing the nine-year sentence or the other trial court orders. The opinion did not identify a remaining issue for further proceedings or order any additional relief.
Key Takeaways
- An independent review of the entire appellate record revealed no arguable error that would produce a disposition more favorable to Avendano.
- The absence of a certificate of probable cause prevented the court from considering challenges to the validity of the no-contest plea.
- A trial court’s denial of a certificate of probable cause must be reviewed through a petition for writ of mandate, which Avendano had not filed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, including the consecutive prison terms totaling nine years.
- Avendano did not submit additional briefing after appointed counsel’s Wende filing and the court’s express invitation to respond.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the established Wende procedure in a plea-based criminal appeal while distinguishing independent record review from review of plea-validity claims. The court did not merely rely on counsel’s statement that no issues existed; it stated that it examined the entire record itself and found neither ineffective assistance nor another arguable basis for a more favorable disposition.
The opinion also illustrates the practical importance of Penal Code section 1237.5 after a no-contest plea. Without the required certificate or a successful writ challenge to its denial, the appellate court could address only issues exempt from that requirement. The affirmance resolved Avendano’s appeal without altering his conviction, sentence, or related orders.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket