P. v. Ware

Filed 8/30/06 P. v. Ware 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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, William R. Pounders, Judge. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Judgment affirmed; petition denied.

Vincent Travis Ware, in pro. per.; Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Vincent Travis Ware appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of sale, transportation or offer to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Thereafter the trial court found true the allegations that defendant had one prior conviction of a serious or violent felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and six prior convictions for which he served prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). It sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of four years, doubled to eight years, and stayed sentence on the prior prison term allegations.

Defendant raised no contentions on appeal but filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising several contentions relating to his competence to stand trial and ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel for failing to raise the issue. We reject defendant's contentions, affirm the judgment and deny his writ petition.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised, inviting us to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On May 30, 2006, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. He did not file any response within the 30-day period.

On July 17, 2006, defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending the trial court failed to employ procedures to protect against the trial of an incompetent defendant in violation of the federal and state constitutions, trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain an adequate determination as to his competency to stand trial, and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise these issues on appeal.

A defendant who is mentally incompetent cannot be tried. (Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a).) A mentally incompetent defendant is one who â€