P. v. Hall
Filed 2/9/07 P. v. Hall CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEAN T. HALL, Defendant and Appellant. | D048861 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD197588, SCD197691, & SCD197919) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers and George W. Clarke, Judges. Affirmed.
In superior court case No. SCD197588, on April 7, 2006, Dean Hall entered negotiated guilty pleas to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),[1] grand theft using an access card (§ 484g, subd. (a)), and unlawfully acquiring access card information (§ 484e, subd. (d)). In case Nos. SCD197691 and SCD197919, on April 7, 2006, Hall entered negotiated guilty pleas to two counts of grand theft using an access card. The court sentenced Hall to prison for the two-year middle term for grand theft in case No. SCD197919, with concurrent prison terms on the remaining convictions. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304.)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. During January through March 2006, Hall used stolen credit card information to spend more than $28,469.48 on hotels and other purchases. Because Hall entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts in greater detail.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) Whether the guilty pleas are constitutionally valid; (2) whether Hall was properly advised he could be ordered to serve up to three years in prison as a result of the guilty pleas; and (3) whether Hall was denied effective assistance of counsel.
We granted Hall permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded, but in an attachment to a notice of appeal and a second notice of appeal, Hall claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel through insufficient communication with his attorney, failure to provide him with discovery, ineffective assistance at the sentencing hearing and failure to object to inaccuracies in the probation report.
All the claims are based on information that is not within the record before this court. " If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. [Citation.] Otherwise, the claim is more appropriately raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.]" (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211, citing People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Hall on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
