Filed 10/2/18 P. v. Pryor CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAYMOND LEE PRYOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D073339
(Super. Ct. No. SCN372735) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under apportionment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We independently review the record in this case consistent with our obligations under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following a plea of guilty, defendant Raymond Lee Pryor was convicted of one count of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) and one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The victim of the threat was Pryor's ex-girlfriend, D. Smith. The victim of the assault was Smith's current boyfriend, D. Henry. In exchange for his plea, two other counts were dismissed. A three-year prison sentence was imposed but stayed. Pryor was granted probation, given credit for time served, and immediately released.
Less than two weeks later, Pryor violated probation when he engaged with Smith in a struggle over a cell phone. Pryor admitted the violation in exchange for dismissal of new charges arising out of the cell phone incident. The court imposed the previously stayed three-year prison sentence. Pryor obtained a certificate of probable cause and filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea. As grounds for his certificate, Pryor claimed that "[t]he charges was [sic] not signaficant [sic] for a conviction. The Judge himself even said it. Also insignaficant [sic] counsel. I was mislead [sic] into taking the deal. Also I was on meds during sentencing."
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating he identified no reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. He directs the court to two subject areas for possible evaluation: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering execution of the sentence and sentencing appellant to state prison rather than reinstating probation? (2) Whether the trial court properly advised appellant of his rights when it accepted his admission to violating his probation?
We offered Pryor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He responded with a supplemental brief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not review the transcript of the preliminary hearing and failed to file a motion under Penal Code section 995. It is well settled, however, that an appellate court will not reverse a conviction based on alleged errors at the preliminary hearing or even the erroneous denial of a Penal Code section 995 motion unless the defendant can establish he or she was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice. (People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 178.) Here, Pryor waived his right to a trial when he agreed to plead guilty to two of the four charges that remained after the preliminary hearing. The trial judge directly questioned Pryor to make sure that no one was pressuring him to enter a plea, and Pryor agreed. Pryor further stated he had no "alcohol, drugs, or any medications in the last 24 hours." The prosecutor emphasized that "if there are any violations, and any violations at all, that his prison sentence is already executed, meaning that we will be requesting that he sentenced to three years prison with no re-opportunity or no new opportunity for him to continue on probation." Pryor indicated he understood. Under these circumstances, Pryor cannot admit he committed two crimes and then complain that the evidence at the preliminary hearing was insufficient.[1]
Our review of the record as mandated by Wende and Anders, including the areas referred to by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel represented Pryor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
DATO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
[1] We only briefly note that Pryor has misread the court's statements at the preliminary hearing as suggesting the evidence was insufficient. Applying the appropriately deferential strong suspicion standard (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474), the judge found sufficient evidence to bind over on four charges. His comments merely highlighted likely factual issues for trial, where the prosecution would bear a significantly greater burden.
