P. v. Velez
Filed 6/13/06 P. v. Velez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN VELEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B185058 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA051874) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Harvey Giss, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Larry Pizarro, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Juan Velez appeals from judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for three years upon certain terms and conditions including that he serve 365 days in county jail. He requested and obtained a certificate of probable cause in essence based on his claim that the screwdriver he possessed was not a deadly weapon and that there was no factual basis for a plea to the alleged charge.
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On April 19, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Since a guilty or no contest plea admits all matters essential to the conviction, claims that the screwdriver was not a deadly weapon or that there was no factual basis for the plea to the charge are not cognizable on appeal. (See People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896; People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 909-910.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
HASTINGS, J.*
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
WILLHITE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Attorneys.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
