P. v. Liodas

Filed 6/26/07 P. v. Liodas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas J. Borris, Judge. Affirmed.

Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Thomas Steven Liodas filed a notice of appeal with this court following the judgment of conviction ordering him to formal probation after he entered a guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine and possession of narcotics paraphernalia.[1] (See Health & Saf.  11377, subd. (a), 11364.) A certificate of probable cause was denied when requested for ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the appeal is limited to issues arising after entry of the plea that do not challenge its validity or involve a search or seizure. (See Pen. Code,  1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)

We appointed counsel to represent Liodas on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against Liodas but advised the court he failed to find any issues to argue on Liodass behalf. We examine the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present.

On the change of plea form, Liodas initialed beside the following statement which was presented as the factual basis for the plea: In Orange County, California, on 8/10/06 I willfully and unlawfully possessed a usable amount of methamphetamine and a pipe. After the entry of this plea, he was granted probation and ordered to complete drug treatment pursuant to Proposition 36, i.e., Penal Code section 1210.1.

On appeal, appointed counsel briefly stated that the following issues were considered or investigated, but that he determined they were not arguable. Nonetheless, we reviewed the issues, summarized as follows: (1) Did the defendant validly waive his appellate rights? (2) Assuming the waiver was invalid, did trial counsel ineffectively represent Liodas by not challenging the sufficiency of the evidentiary showing at the preliminary hearing? (3) Was the trial courts denial of the request for a certificate of probable cause in error? (4) Did the trial court err when it denied Liodass motion to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118? (5) Was the change of plea properly made and entered? Based on the authority provided by appointed appellate counsel as to each of these issues, we conclude counsel was correct in his assessment that there were no arguable issues to be raised and briefed.

Liodas was informed by appointed counsel as well as by this Court that he could submit written concerns or argument on his own behalf and was given at least 30 days to do so. Liodas has submitted nothing for our review.

We have examined the record and found no arguable issues. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.

SILLS, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, J.

ARONSON, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.

[1] Liodas also had a prior prison term to which he stated to the court that he was admitting. However, he failed to initialize the box stating he had the prior prison term in his change of plea form. In the colloquy with the court, he did agree that he was admitting his priors voluntarily. Nonetheless, the trial court failed to ask him to admit that prior prison term. We, therefore, do not refer to the prior prison term as part of this review.