P. v. McClure
Filed 9/28/06 P. v. McClure 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ROSCOE FLOYD MCCLURE, Defendant and Appellant. | B189952 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA073670) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wade Olson, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Roscoe Floyd McClure appeals from a judgment entered following his guilty plea to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, five additional priors alleged within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and a misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550, subdivision (a) were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea, he was sentenced to prison for a total of four years, consisting of the upper term of three years, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. 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 June 21, 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 requested and received extensions of time to file a supplemental brief.
On August 29, 2006, he filed a supplemental brief claiming he had agreed to a sentence of only three years and if the court rejected that request, he wanted to go to trial. He was advised by his attorney he was “looking at 7 years” but the court told him he was facing “10 years max.” He claimed he was not on drugs, that his mother was in and out of the hospital and needed his help, and that he had written a letter of apology to Target. He believes that his plea was induced by misrepresentation and requests that his sentence be modified to three years. He states he is getting help through the Veterans Administration Hospital and wants to give back to the community with an invention of his. His criminal record contains no violent crimes, no sex crimes, and no strikes. He has a family and a job waiting for him, and his custody is at a minimum security level where he has had no disciplinary problems. Additionally, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 7, 2006, he filed an additional brief, again indicating he had agreed to “take a deal at three years.” He admitted that he was guilty of shoplifting at the Target store. He claims he was not allowed to speak privately with his county public defender about the admission of the enhancement.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Appellant was advised that he would receive a four-year term as a consequence of his plea. Issues going to the validity of appellant’s plea 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
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J. MANELLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
