People v. Mix CA2/7
B340929
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2025|
Check TreatmentFiled 11/17/25 P. v. Mix CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B340929
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA122422)
v.
JOSEPH ROBERT MIX,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Richard M. Goul, Judge. Affirmed.
Joseph Robert Mix, in pro. per., Teresa Biagini, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Joseph Robert Mix appeals from the judgment entered after
he pleaded no contest to one count of lewd or lascivious act upon
a child age 14 or 15 and one count of possession of child
pornography and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate
term of two years in state prison. We appointed counsel to
represent Mix on appeal. After reviewing the record, appointed
appellate counsel for Mix did not identify any arguable issues and
asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. After independently
reviewing the record, as well as the supplemental opening brief
filed by Mix, we have not identified any arguable issues either.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2023 Mix met 15-year-old A.J. at a birthday
party.1 A.J. attended the party with her friend, who was Mix’s
daughter. At some point during the party, Mix began talking to
A.J. about “sadism, masochism, and ‘hand-jobs,’” and he showed
A.J. a photo of a naked woman tied to a bed. A week later, A.J.
was at Mix’s apartment visiting her friend when Mix took A.J.
into his bedroom, where he undressed her and touched her on her
chest, her “private parts” (including her vagina) and her entire
body. He touched her both over and under her clothing, with
“skin-to-skin contact.” Mix did the same thing to A.J. “multiple
times.” On several occasions Mix blindfolded her.
In May 2023 Mix had A.J. lie on the bed and touched her
underneath her clothing. He put his fingers into her vagina, then
“put his lower body part into [hers] without protection,” then
“went in and out for a little bit, and then just stopped” and left
A.J. on the bed. She clarified that the “body part” was Mix’s
1 The facts are taken from the October 23, 2024 probation
report as background only.
2
penis. Mix left her, and when he returned, A.J. was crying. A.J.
also described that Mix on different occasions blindfolded her,
tied her up with a rope, made her wear a cat collar, and put
restraints over her wrists. He also put a vibrator inside her
vagina and anus.
On June 1, 2023 A.J. was in a class where the teacher was
presenting a sex education lesson and suggested the students
write a note to her if they had any questions. A.J. wrote a note
saying she had been raped and did not know what to do about it.
A.J. explained in her testimony that she was referring to Mix.
The teacher brought A.J. into the office, and the school contacted
the police. The police officers executed a search warrant and
recovered from Mix’s home handcuffs, a spiked metal collar,
tasseled whips, a black rope, vibrators, dildos, and several other
sex toys, as well as two laptop computers, a memory card, USB
drives, a cell phone, and a mini-tablet. The police recovered from
Mix’s devices over 30,000 images and 131 videos of child
pornography.
An information filed on January 25, 2024 charged Mix with
three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child
age 14 or 15 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1); 2 counts 1, 3 & 4);
three counts of possession of child pornography (§ 311.11,
subd. (a); counts 5, 6 & 7); and one count of oral copulation with a
person under 16 years of age (§ 287, subd. (b)(2); count 2). As to
counts 1 through 4, the information alleged the victim was
particularly vulnerable within the meaning of California Rules of
Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)),3 and, as to all counts, that the acts
2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3 All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
3
involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily
harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty,
viciousness, or callousness. (Rule 4.421(a)(1).) The information
also alleged as to all counts that Mix had been convicted of other
crimes for which consecutive sentences could be imposed
(rule 4.421(a)(7)) and that he had served a prior prison term
within the meaning of section 1170, subdivision (h).
On June 3, 2024 the trial court granted Mix’s Pitchess
motion for discovery of police officer records4 but found no
discoverable information after conducting an in-camera review.
On June 25 the court denied Mix’s motion to quash the search
warrant for his home and his motion to exclude evidence from the
search. Mix had argued the materials found on his “USB disk”
that allegedly contained pornographic materials should be
suppressed because there was no probable cause to seize Mix’s
cell phones, computers, and hard drives. Mix argued the
detective’s testimony—that a witness observed Mix recording A.J.
at a minor’s birthday party and that the seized items could assist
the police in locating additional victims—was insufficient to
support issuance of the search warrant.
On July 26, 2024 Mix, on his own behalf, filed a motion to
dismiss the charges (July 26 motion to dismiss) on the basis his
due process rights had been violated “by denying Defendant the
basic requirement of discovery, [and] also by imposing cruel and
unusual punishment.” With respect to cruel and unusual
punishment, Mix argued that while he was in custody, he was
deprived of sleep when taken to court, required to live in
unsanitary and inhumane conditions, denied adequate supplies
4 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
4
and access to the library, and subject to excessive bail. Mix also
filed on his own behalf a motion to set aside the information
pursuant to section 995 with respect to counts 5 through 7 for
possession of child pornography because “there is insufficient
proof to establish a reasonable belief that an offense has been
committed and the defendant is guilty of the charged offense.”
The trial court denied both motions on August 8, 2024.
On September 12, 2024 Mix filed a motion titled
“Suggestion to Dismiss” pursuant to section 1385. The motion
argued the child pornography counts should be dismissed because
“to proceed on those charges would be against public policy and
would violate the 4th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United
States Constitution as well as . . . the California Constitution, as
well as California Evidence Code.” The trial court denied the
motion the same day.
On September 12, following the denial of his motion to
dismiss filed that day, Mix pleaded no contest to one count of
lewd or lascivious act upon a child age 14 or 15 (count 1) and one
count of possession of child pornography (count 5) and admitted
an aggravating factor pursuant to rule 4.421(a)(3). Prior to his
change of plea, the trial court advised him of his constitutional
and other rights, which Mix waived. On September 18 the court
sentenced Mix to the middle term of two years on count 1 and a
concurrent two-year term (also the middle term) on count 5. The
court awarded Mix 384 actual days of custody credit and 384 days
of conduct credit for a total of 768 days of credit. The court
ordered Mix to register as a sex offender under section 290, and
the court entered a criminal protective order requiring Mix to
stay away from A.J. for 10 years.
5
On September 20, 2024 Mix filed a notice of appeal and
checked the boxes on the form stating “[t]his appeal challenges
the validity of the plea” and “[o]ther basis for this appeal.” The
form stated as to each basis that he was required to request a
certificate of probable cause. Mix argued in his request for
certificate of probable cause: “Prior to entering his plea of no
contest, Mr. Mix made several oral and written motions on his
behalf. Some of these motions were made through his appointed
counsel. The majority were made in writing and filed himself.
Specifically, Mr. Mix made numerous motions to be provided a
copy of his discovery. This request was made orally through his
appointed counsel. Mr. Mix also filed several written motions to
deny one or more counts charged in the information. All of these
motions were formally denied. Mr. Mix . . . entered his plea of no
contest partly because his various motions had been denied. Had
the motions been granted, the change of plea may not have
occurred. Mr. Mix wishes to appeal the denial of his oral and
written motions as well as the denial of his request for a copy of
his discovery.” The trial court denied Mix’s request for certificate
of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record, counsel for Mix filed an opening
brief raising no issues. On September 21, 2025 counsel advised
Mix of her evaluation and intent to file a brief raising no issues.
Counsel also sent Mix a copy of the appellate record and the brief.
On September 25 counsel for Mix filed a supplemental opening
brief attaching Mix’s July 26 motion to dismiss, which the trial
6
court had denied.5
Following entry of a judgment based on a plea of no contest,
with limited exceptions, a defendant must obtain a certificate of
probable cause from the trial court to raise a challenge on appeal,
including to the validity of an appeal. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); see
People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379; rule 8.304(b)(1).) A certificate of probable cause is not required for an appeal of “(1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Panizzon (1996)13 Cal.4th 68, 74-75
; see
rule 8.304(b)(2).)
In the absence of a certificate of probable cause, we lack
jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Mix’s July 26
motion to dismiss based on the failure of the prosecution to
produce discovery and the conditions of his confinement. To the
extent Mix claims he would not have entered the plea agreement
but for the court’s denial of his July 26 motion to dismiss (or
other motions to dismiss), “[i]t has long been established that
issues going to the validity of a plea require compliance with
section 1237.5.” (People v. Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 76; see People v. McEwan (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 173, 178
.)
Accordingly, Mix cannot challenge the validity of the plea based
on the denial of the July 26 motion to dismiss or other motions to
dismiss.
5 The supplemental brief states, “Appellant Joseph
Mix . . . submits the attached Motion to Dismiss in the
Furtherance of Justice . . . for this Supplemental Opening Brief.”
7
We have reviewed the portion of the record that does not
require a certificate of probable cause (the denial of his motion to
suppress) and are satisfied that appellate counsel for Mix has
complied with her responsibilities and that there are no arguable
issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006)40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119
; People v.Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
FEUER, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J.
STONE, J.
8