Filed 5/2/17 P. v. West CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LEO CHRISTOPHER WEST,
Defendant and Appellant.
B275746
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA089626)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Affirmed.
Gideon Margolis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The People charged Leo Christopher West with three
counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The People
alleged in two of the counts that a person other than an
accomplice was present during the commission of the burglaries
(Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) and in one of the counts that
one of the victims was 65 years or older (Pen. Code, § 667.9, subd.
(a)). The People also alleged West had suffered three prior
serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the
three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12), two
serious felony convictions under Penal Code section 667,
subdivision (a)(1), and had served three separate prison terms for
felonies (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
After waiving his right to a jury trial, West entered a
negotiated plea of guilty to one count of first degree burglary and
admitted one prior strike conviction and the two serious felony
enhancement allegations. West was advised of and waived his
constitutional rights and was advised of and acknowledged he
understood the consequences of his plea. Counsel stipulated to a
factual basis for the plea. The trial court found West had
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his
constitutional rights, and the court entered his guilty plea.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court
sentenced West to an aggregate state prison term of 22 years.
The court ordered West to pay statutory fines, fees, and
assessments, as well as restitution to the three burglary victims.
The court awarded West 924 days of presentence custody credits
and dismissed the remaining counts on the People’s motion.
3
This court granted West’s application for relief from default
for failure to file a timely notice of appeal and directed the clerk
of the superior court to accept as timely the untimely notice of
appeal West had attempted to file. In the notice of appeal, West
checked the preprinted boxes indicating his appeal “is based on
the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not
affect the validity of the plea,” “challenges the validity of the plea
or admission” and raises “[o]ther basis for this appeal.” In his
request for a certificate of probable cause, West alleged he had
been unlawfully subjected to double jeopardy, his trial counsel
was constitutionally ineffective, the court miscalculated his
presentence custody credits, and the evidence was insufficient to
support his burglary convictions. The trial court denied West’s
request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent West on appeal. After
reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no
issues. On January 25, 2017 we advised West he had 30 days to
file a supplemental brief raising any contentions or issues he
wanted us to consider. We have not received a response.
A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no
contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause can only
challenge the denial of a motion to suppress or raise issues
arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of
the plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b)(1); see People v. Mashburn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 937,
941 [“‘[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 . . . must be strictly
applied,’” and the “‘Supreme Court has disapproved the practice
4
of applying the rule loosely in order to reach issues whose
consideration would otherwise be precluded’”].)
We have examined the record with respect to potential
sentencing or post-plea issues that do not in substance challenge
the validity of the plea. We are satisfied appellate counsel for
West has fully complied with his responsibilities and there are no
arguable issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259,
277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-442.) In addition, the record fails to demonstrate trial
counsel for West provided ineffective assistance. (See Strickland
v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SEGAL, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J. SMALL, J.*
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.