P. v. Saucedo
Filed 8/14/07 P. v. Saucedo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JOSHUA NATHANIEL SAUCEDO, Defendant and Appellant. | D050349 (Super. Ct. No. SCE262420) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exharos, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua Nathaniel Saucedo entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury with personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court placed him on three years' probation. Saucedo appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2006, as Shaun Broger was sitting in his car at a gas station, Saucedo and Luis Barboza approached. Barboza asked Broger if he wanted to sell his car. Broger told Barboza to get away from the car. When Broger started to get out of the car, Barboza punched him, then Saucedo punched him. Saucedo and Barboza punched Broger numerous times. Saucedo hit Broger in the head with a bottle. One of the assailants said, "I guess you should have sold me your car." Broger received a cut lip and several scratches and cuts on his hand and knee.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He 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, he lists, as a possible but not arguable issue, whether the court's statement at the change of plea hearing that he could "receive up to 365 days in the county jail" constituted a stipulated sentence, requiring a certificate of probable cause, or a sentencing lid, not requiring a certificate.
We granted Saucedo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded. Saucedo contends trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty based on the misrepresentation that the victim suffered great bodily injury (i.e., he sustained a fractured finger and went to the hospital), and if it were not for counsel's incompetence, he would not have pleaded guilty.
The guilty plea
A guilty plea must be free and voluntary. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-243.) However, absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal. (Pen. Code, 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The record before this court does not include a certificate of probable cause. As a result, Saucedo cannot challenge on appeal the validity of his guilty plea, which included an acknowledgement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury.
Effective assistance of counsel
Defendants have a constitutional right to effective counsel in criminal cases. (Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335.) The burden is on the defendant to prove he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To do so, the defendant must show counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel's acts or omissions prejudiced the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 691-692.) When reviewing an appeal, we are limited to the record before us. (People v. Jackson (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 485, 490; People v. Roberts (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 387, 394.) Here, the record does not support Saucedo's claims that trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty, made any misrepresentation or was incompetent. These claims are more appropriately raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Saucedo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
