P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B186288 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA276689) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed.
Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ricardo Gonzalez appeals from judgment entered following his guilty plea to three counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/664) and three counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), his admission that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and personally discharged a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (c) during the commission of the three counts of attempted murder, his admission that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a), during the commission of one of the assaults and personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) in the commission of the assaults. Appellant was sentenced to a total term of 38 years in prison. He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 25, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Thereafter, he submitted a letter stating that he believed his sentence was unfair, that at the time of the crimes he was under the influence of alcohol and that he pled guilty to the charges because of fear and pressure. He believed it was unfair for him not to be able to appeal as this was his first time in prison. He additionally claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel and had attempted to change his retained counsel.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. While appellant was denied a certificate of probable cause, he was still permitted to appeal the trial court's exercise of its sentencing discretion. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773,777.) Issues going to the validity of appellant's plea, however, are not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause. (See People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.) Further, on this record, appellant has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
HASTINGS, J.*
We concur:
CURRY, Acting P. J.
WILLHITE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Attorneys.
* Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
