P. v.
Filed 5/24/13 P. v. Edmond CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD EDMOND,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243593
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LA068998)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Leslie A. Dunn,
Judge. Affirmed.
Linn
Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Richard Edmond entered a negotiated plea of no contest to
two counts of second degree robbery
and admitted a Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) personal gun‑use
allegation. In conformity with the
sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison.
Defendant’s plea pertained to robberies of employees of two different
Rite Aid stores on Ventura Boulevard
on September 21 and 26, 2011. According
to the probation report, defendant and two accomplices committed the robberies,
with one member of the group driving and remaining in the car and the other two
donning masks, entering the stores with guns, pointing the guns at store
personnel, and removing money from cash registers and the safe. A witness to the September 21, 2011 robbery provided a license
plate number to the police, who kept the vehicle under surveillance. Police followed the vehicle to and from the September 26, 2011 robbery, arrested
defendant and his accomplices, and recovered the money taken from the store.
Defendant
and his accomplices were charged with two counts of kidnapping for robbery,
four counts of second degree robbery, and one count of assault with a
firearm. A Penal Code section
12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement was alleged as to each count. At the sentencing hearing, the remaining five
counts were dismissed and the prosecutor promised not to pursue the
investigation of crimes committed at eight other drug stores and one grocery
store in the San Fernando Valley between July and
September of 2011.
About two
months after he was sentenced, defendant wrote the trial court a letter asking
that his sentence be reduced. Defendant
challenged the sufficiency of evidence and said he only pleaded no contest to
protect his “codefendants and family friends from possibly facing life in
prison in trial for ‘kidnap for robbery.’â€
Although defendant’s letter did not request a certificate of probable
cause and was not “executed
under oath or penalty of perjury,†as required by Penal Code section 1237.5,
subdivision (a), the trial court granted him a certificate of probable
cause.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. After examination
of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this
court to independently review the record.
On February 21, 2013,
we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
To date, we have received no response.
Although the trial court
issued a certificate of probable cause, Penal Code section 1237.5 provides, “No
appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a
plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an
admission of violation, except where both of the following are met:
(a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written
statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable
constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the
proceedings
[¶] (b) The
trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such
appeal with the clerk of the court.â€
Because defendant’s letter did not meet the requirements of subdivision
(a) of this statute, the trial court improperly granted a certificate of
probable cause and defendant was limited to raising (1) “[t]he
denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5†or (2) “[g]rounds
that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity.†(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) No suppression motion was made in this case
and the claims raised in defendant’s letter were not matters arising after
entry of the plea.
Even if we were to give effect to
the improperly issued certificate of
probable cause, defendant’s no contest plea constituted an admission
of every element of the charged offenses and enhancement. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th
1170, 1177.) “[I]ssues going to the
determination of guilt or innocence are not cognizable on appeal; review is
instead limited to issues going to the jurisdiction of the court or the
legality of the proceedings, including the constitutional validity of the
plea.†(Id. at p. 1178.)
We have examined the entire
record and have found that no arguable issues of any sort exist. We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney
has fully complied with her responsibilities.
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO,
P. J.
We
concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
CHANEY, J.
