How have the courts treated a motion of no contest in a case involving a minor who pleaded no contest to a charge of sexual assault?

Everyone now claims that the whole situation was a terrible misunderstanding based on miscommunication in the family and lies told by the minor who was seeking attention. Despite these claims challenging the factual basis underlying the charges, the defendant fails to raise any arguable issue related to sentencing. Defendant complains that he was not sentenced by a judge familiar with his case which resulted in a harsher sentence. While it is a constitutional right to be sentenced by the same judge who took the guilty plea (People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749), when defendant pleaded no contest, he signed a waiver form, waiving the right to be sentenced by the same judge and agreeing to be sentenced by a different judge.

Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. We conclude that there are no arguable issues. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.