Filed 4/23/18 P. v. Nguyen CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL QUOC NGUYEN,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069405

(Super.Ct.Nos. FSB17001551 &
FSB1600152)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Richard V. Peel, Judge. Affirmed.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In case No. FSB17001551, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Paul Quoc Nguyen with possession of ammunition after having been previously convicted of a felony under Penal Code section 30305, subdivision (a)(1), a felony (count 1); and possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor (count 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant had a serious felony conviction, section 422, which was a strike offense under section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(38).
In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to attempted possession of ammunition under sections 664 and 30305. Defendant also admitted that the prior strike conviction allegation was true. At the same time, defendant also admitted that his new conviction constituted a violation of a grant of probation in Case Number FSB1600152 (2016 possession for sale of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11378).
In accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, on September 8, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve 16 months in state prison for the attempted ammunition possession; and 24 months, concurrently, for the probation violation case. The trial court also ordered restitution fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45.
On October 31, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, in case No. FSB17001551. Defendant marked the box indicating that he was challenging the validity of his appeal. In a request for a certificate of probable cause, defendant averred that the trial court improperly denied his motion to relieve his attorney and that a plea to attempted possession of ammunition was improper. On November 2, 2017, the trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
On November 8, 2017, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal. The amended notice of appeal indicated that the appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.”
On January 18, 2018, defendant filed his opening brief. Thereafter, on March 2, 2018, the appellate record was augmented with a supplemental reporter’s transcript of defendant’s guilty plea to one count of transportation of methamphetamine in the probation violation case, case No. FSB1600152. On March 7, 2018, defendant filed a supplemental brief.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. MARSDEN HEARING
Before a preliminary hearing was conducted in this case, defendant asked the court to relieve his court-appointed defense counsel. The court cleared the courtroom and conducted an inquiry in accordance with the procedures set forth under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
Defendant told the court that the initial meeting with his counsel did not go well. “[T]he first time we met he cussed at me and I had—I got upset and cussed back, but I didn’t cuss at him, I said the ‘F’ word.” Defense counsel got up and walked way, saying “whatever.” Defendant told the court that his counsel did not explain anything to him. “Everything just happened so quick . . . it’s my life and I just want to understand everything, you know?” Defendant said that he called his counsel’s office three times and left messages; he never received a return call. On his third call, defendant managed to get counsel’s secretary to send defendant a copy of the discovery, which he had recently received. Defendant said that he has not had a chance to speak with his counsel or discuss what he was going to do to defend defendant. Defendant asked his counsel to file some motions but counsel did not file any motions.
The trial court observed that defendant had three prior felony convictions dating back to 2009. The court stated, “You’re no stranger to the criminal justice system.” Although the court asked defendant to state what motions he wanted filed, defendant did not respond with a direct answer to the question.
Defense counsel was asked to respond. Counsel stated that at the arraignment, he conveyed a case settlement offer from the prosecutor’s office to defendant. Counsel then passed-on defendant’s counteroffer to the prosecution. The prosecutor rejected the counteroffer. Counsel stated that he had gone over the police reports with defendant and told him what his maximum exposure would be in this and the probation violation cases. Defendant wanted his wife to the have the discovery so that she might be able to retain a private lawyer; counsel supplied the paperwork to defendant’s wife. Defendant’s wife, however, was not successful in securing private counsel.
Defense counsel then discussed defendant’s calls to his office. Counsel stated, “He has called our office. I received messages. I just sent out the discovery that he was requesting. He also made another request during that time, I told him that—it was last week. I told him that I don’t have enough time to do it—to get it done this—today, and that he would have to waive time for me to look into that, that I wouldn’t be able to look into it. He also asked me file a 995 motion, and I told him the proper procedure for the 995 motion.”
Counsel also relayed that he and defendant discussed the prosecutor’s most recent counteroffer. Counsel told defendant, “ ‘Hey, this is a new DA. He’s a little bit more reasonable.’ I believe that the prior DA he had—because the prior DA was not budging at all. And this DA started going down on his offer, we got an offer on the table, it was similar to, you know—close to what we wanted, but it’s not all the way there. And I informed him of the offer and [defendant] indicated he wanted to seek private counsel. I informed the Court of that.”
Defense counsel further relayed defendant wanted counsel to speak to defendant’s wife. Counsel did speak with defendant’s wife and informed defendant that he had “talked to his wife on several occasions over the phone about his case, and stuff like that. So I know he was indicating that I needed to talk to his wife, I did talk to his wife already, and I informed him I spoke to her over the phone.”
Defense counsel concluded by stating, “So I believe I’m working on his case and I can effectively represent him, and I would ask that the public defender not be relieved of the case.”
At the conclusion of counsel’s remarks, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to discharge the public defender’s office.
2. CASE NUMBER FSB17001551
The parties stipulated that the “investigate reports in this case, along with [defendant’s] rap sheet” constituted a factual basis for the change of plea and admission.
The Redlands Police Department report, dated April 20, 2017, stated that defendant was detained after he was recognized by a police officer as a wanted fugitive. A search of his person revealed that he was in possession of a small quantity of methamphetamine. Defendant also had some keys that he said were for a residence belonging to his parents in Mentone. Defendant told the police that he stored some of his belongings inside the house.
Officers went to the residence and were admitted inside by defendant’s ex-girlfriend. She showed them an upstairs room where she said defendant stored his belongings. One of the keys that they found on defendant unlocked the door to the room. Defendant was also in possession of keys that unlocked the front door of the house, as well as a security screen door. During a search of the room, the officers found a bag containing firearm ammunition, along with four handgun magazines and a military-style smoke grenade. Defendant told the police following a Miranda waiver that the items seized were “Just all old stuff I forgot I had.” He explained that he had received the items from a “smoker that wanted to trade dope for the stuff.”
3. CASE NUMBER FSB1600152
On November 19, 2015, San Bernardino County Sheriff deputies conducted a “vehicle check” of a motorcycle driven by defendant. Defendant stated that he did not have a motorcycle license. Defendant appeared nervous and agitated and did not make eye contact. Although defendant denied that he had anything illegal on his person or in the backpack he was wearing, the deputies detained defendant and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car. When questioned again about whether defendant had anything illegal in his backpack, he responded that he had “meth and heroin.”
A subsequent search resulted in the seizure of two glass pipes, one with a bulb at the end containing a crystal white substance. The deputies also found cut straws, multiple sheets of foil with brown burn markings, a spoon with burnt marks on the bottom portion, a digital scale, empty Ziploc bags, and a notebook with pay-owe accounting entries. There were eight individual bags with a brown tar-like substance that appeared to be heroin. The deputies additionally recovered a bag with a multitude of prescription pills and three plastic bags that appeared to contain methamphetamine. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant admitted that all of the narcotics were his.
On January 14, 2016, a four-count felony complaint charged defendant with transportation of methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); possession for sale of methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); transportation of heroin (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379); and possession for sale of heroin (count 4; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). On May 16, 2016, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine (count 1), and the court dismissed the remaining counts. The court placed defendant on formal probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he “violate no law.” The court also ordered a five-day term in county jail.
On July 7, 2017, defendant admitted that his conviction in case No. FSB17001551 violated his probation. The trial court revoked defendant’s probation and set his case for sentencing on September 8, 2017. On that date, the court imposed the low term of two years to run concurrently with the sentence on case No. FSB17001551.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. On January 18, 2018, counsel filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. After the appellate record was augmented, on March 7, 2018, counsel filed a supplemental brief providing a summary of the factual basis for the guilty plea in Case Number FSB1600152.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief on two occasions, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


McKINSTER
Acting P. J.


SLOUGH
J.