P. v. Watts

Filed 10/30/06 P. v. Watts CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.

Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant John Lyle Watts entered a plea of no contest to continuous sexual abuse (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a); count 1), oral copulation of a person under the age of 16 (id., § 288a, subd. (b)(2); count 7) and two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child (id., § 288, subd. (c)(1); counts 8 & 9), which crimes were charged in a felony complaint. The five remaining counts, which also alleged the commission of various sex crimes, were dismissed. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement set forth in the Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form executed by defendant, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years in state prison. Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal in which he specified that he was challenging the validity of his plea. Defendant also requested a certificate of probable cause, but the trial court denied his request.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On July 13, 2006, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally any contentions or issues that he wanted us to consider.

Defendant has submitted a supplemental letter brief in which he raises numerous assignments of error that can be condensed into the following contentions: (1) he should have been permitted to change attorneys; (2) he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel prior to and during the negotiation of the plea and sentence; and (3) trial counsel also was ineffective after the plea in failing to move to set aside the guilty plea and by allowing defendant to be sentenced by Judge Ronald Coen.

Defendant’s contentions that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel are, in effect, challenges to the validity of his plea. (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63-64; People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244; cf. In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 651.) Absent a certificate of probable cause, these contentions are not cognizable on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76, 78, 79; People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1173.)

With regard to defendant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to be sentenced by Judge Coen, defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 664; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1008.) Judge Coen imposed the exact sentence defendant agreed to receive in exchange for his plea of no contest.

To the extent defendant challenges the denial of his post-plea Marsden[1] motion, an issue for which no certificate of probable cause is required (People v. Vera (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 970, 978), we have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Marsden hearing and conclude unequivocally that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to change attorneys. (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1245; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 876.)

We have otherwise examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JACKSON, J.*

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P. J. VOGEL, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

[1] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.