Filed 8/22/17 P. v. Soto CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL JOHN SOTO,
Defendant and Appellant.
| 2d Crim. No. B281938 (Super. Ct. No. CR45738A) (Ventura County)
|
Michael John Soto appeals from a March 7, 2017 postjudgment order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In 1999, appellant pled guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a))[1] and admitted that he was a principal armed with, and used, a firearm which resulted in causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) - (d)). The record reflects that appellant and a gang cohort went on a three-hour crime spree that spanned four cities. Appellant yelled gang slogans at a man and shot him in the chest with a sawed off rifle. The trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years to life state prison and ordered appellant to pay victim restitution and various fines, fees, and assessments.
In 2017 appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that he was misled by trial counsel and that he could be resentenced pursuant to recently passed Proposition 57. The trial court denied the petition on March 7, 2017 because: (1) it was untimely; (2) no facts were alleged that appellant would have declined the plea offer had he known that the prosecution was not recommending a more lenient sentence; (3) the claim was previously rejected prior to sentencing in a motion to withdraw the plea; (4) the claim was previously rejected in a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction; and (5) the claim was previously rejected in two petitions for writ of habeas corpus.[2]
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On June 22, 2017, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Ryan J. Wright, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
[1] Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] We affirmed the judgment of conviction in 2000 (B138790) and denied two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in 2001 (B150355) and 2002 (B155674).
