P. v. Gonzalez

Filed 8/1/07 P. v. Gonzalez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

While serving a life term at the California Training Facility at Soledad, defendant, Alejandro Gonzales, was discovered with a razor blade in his shoe. After the trial court denied his motion to dismiss on the basis that his speedy trial rights had been violated, defendant pleaded guilty to one felony count of custodial manufacture of a weapon (Pen. Code,  4502, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike. (Pen. Code,  1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) Pursuant to stipulation, the trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause. After the certificate of probable cause was denied, the defendant filed an amended notice of appeal challenging only his sentence. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. We received a supplemental brief from defendant.

In his supplemental brief, defendant does not raise any arguable issues relating to sentencing error. Defendant makes broad assertions that his constitutional and due process rights were violated and that his plea was made under duress. These contentions are neither supported by citations to the record nor to any applicable law. Finally, defendant asks this court to consider his pro per status at the trial court below in our review of the entire record on appeal. While we appreciate the effort involved in defendant representing himself in the criminal proceedings, a self-representing party is due the same consideration as any other party from trial and appellate courts, but no greater. (Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.) Defendant elected to proceed pro per below despite considerable warnings from the trial court about the difficulty and perils of that task. His self-representation does not create an arguable issue on appeal.

Pursuant to our obligations, as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal 4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record, including the supplemental brief from defendant, and have concluded that there are no arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal 4th at pp. 124-125.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

____________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.