P. v. Davalos
Filed 7/27/06 P. v. Davalos CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN ADRIAN DAVALOS, Defendant and Appellant. | G035304 (Super. Ct. No. 04CF2359) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard W. Stanford, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Scott M. Rand, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We appointed counsel to represent Martin Adrian Davalos on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. We invited Davalos to file a supplemental brief, which he did. We have considered Davalos' supplemental brief, and we have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
* * *
In his supplemental brief, Davalos alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel, he was improperly denied a continuance to retain private counsel, and the trial court erred by denying his Romero motion. (People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) We conclude none of his contentions have merit.
The burden of proving constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel is on the defendant. (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425.) To establish such a claim, â€
