P. v. Washington
Filed 3/17/06 P. v. Washington CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H029223
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Clara County
Superior Court
v. No. CC459768)
TOROMI RADEL WASHINGTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
_____________________________________/
Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of committing a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and admitted that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) (a five-year enhancement) and Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) to (i) and 1170.12 (doubling the term for his substantive offense). His plea and admissions were entered pursuant to a plea agreement in exchange for an agreed term of 17 years in prison and dismissal of other counts and allegations. The trial court imposed the agreed 17-year prison term. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and he has submitted a one-page letter. In his letter, defendant appears to assert that his trial counsel was ineffective in advising him regarding his plea and that he should have received a 13-year prison term rather than the 17-year prison term imposed by the trial court.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in advising a defendant regarding a plea may only be raised on an appeal from a guilty or no contest plea if the defendant obtains a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682; In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 651.) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, so his ineffective assistance of counsel contention cannot be addressed on appeal. Nor could it succeed on appeal because the appellate record contains no explanation for any of his trial counsel's acts or omissions. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
Defendant's sentencing contention also fails since his plea agreement was clearly for a specified term of 17 years in prison. While defendant acknowledges that 12 years of his term is attributable to the doubled-midterm sentence for his crime, he erroneously asserts that the allegation he admitted was a one-year prison prior rather than the five-year serious felony prior that was alleged in the information and admitted in accordance with his plea agreement. His erroneous assertion accounts for the difference between the 17-year agreed term and the 13-year term that he now claims should have been imposed. As he explicitly agreed to the 17-year term below, he cannot challenge it on appeal. (People v. Couch (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1057.) Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
Rushing, P.J.
_____________________________
McAdams, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
