P. v. Lampkin
Filed 10/2/07 P. v. Lampkin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LESTER LAMPKIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B198887 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA058029) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Affirmed.
Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Lester Lampkin appeals from a judgment entered following his negotiated plea to stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (a)).
According to the Probation Officers Report, the victim was at home when Lampkin entered uninvited and began to argue with her. He became verbally abusive, issued various threats, and prevented her from leaving the house. When the victim managed to get to her car, Lampkin climbed into the backseat over her objection. As the victim drove, Lampkin continued his verbal abuse; at one point threatening to kill her if she contacted police.
Lampkin was charged by information with one count of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422). The information specially alleged Lampkin had previously suffered two serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and he had served three separate prison terms for felonies (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On March 26, 2007, Lampkin appeared in court for jury trial, represented by counsel. In response to the prosecutors plea offer, Lampkin asked for time to see a doctor before deciding whether or not to accept the offer. Lampkin explained that during his three months in custody, he had not been receiving the prescribed medication for his mental illness. Lampkin mentioned the possibility of seeing an outside doctor under Penal Code section 1368.
In response to a query from the trial court, defense counsel stated that he was aware Lampkin had mental health issues for which he had been prescribed medication. However, counsel indicated that in his opinion Lampkin was a very abled [sic] client who had assist[ed] [him] in critical ways. Accordingly, counsel could not express a doubt as to Lampkins mental competence. He suggested that Lampkin was under the influence of a headache or some kind of anxiety and requested that Lampkin be given 24 hours to make up his mind about the plea offer.
The trial court denied the request for a continuance and told Lampkin that he could either accept the plea offer or proceed to trial.
After conferring with defense counsel, Lampkin decided to accept the prosecutors offer. Lampkin withdrew his earlier plea of not guilty and, pursuant to the negotiated agreement, waived his constitutional rights, pleaded no contest to an amended count of stalking and admitted he had previously suffered one prior strike conviction. Lampkin was sentenced to state prison for 32 months or the lower term of 16 months doubled under the Three Strikes law. Lampkin received presentence custody credit of 136 days (91 actual days and 45 days of conduct credit). The trial court ordered Lampkin to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The remaining charge and special allegations were dismissed on the prosecutors motion.
Lampkin timely filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent Lampkin on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On August 14, 2007, we advised Lampkin that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. On August 27, 2007, we received a handwritten supplemental brief in which Lampkin raised no legally cognizable issues on appeal.[1]
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Lampkins attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The record reflects that Lampkin knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights and voluntarily entered his plea based on the plea agreement. There is no evidence to overcome either the trial courts or the defense counsels lack of doubt that Lampkin was mentally competent at the time he entered his plea. (See People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 727, overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
[1] After first asking this court to review his case, Lampkin made a rambling request for medical help and medication, claiming defense counsel failed to provide either a doctor or medication after sentencing as counsel purportedly promised.
