THE PEOPLE v. JOHN LEN PARRISH (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

John Len Parrish appeals from a judgment entered following his plea of no contest to count 1, grand theft (Pen.Code, § 487, subd. (a)).¹  His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied on May 5, 2010.

On October 15, 2008, appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, pursuant to which he pled guilty to count 1, grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)).  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed count 2, burglary (§ 459);  count 3, grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a));  and count 4, burglary (§ 459).   The trial court also dismissed the allegation as to all counts that pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) appellant suffered three prior convictions, that a term was served as described in section 667.5 for the offenses, and that appellant did not remain free of custody and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction during a period of five years subsequent to the term.   The trial court also dismissed the allegation as to all counts that appellant was convicted of five felonies within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).   Appellant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months on count 1.

On March 23, 2010, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that trial counsel coerced his plea, trial counsel was ineffective, and the plea was not intelligently made.   The petition was denied that same day.   Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause that was denied on May 5, 2010.

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised.

On September 21, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.   He filed supplemental briefs on October 8, 2010, October 14, 2010,² and November 16, 2010.   He seeks to withdraw his plea of no contest based on the issues raised in his habeas corpus petition, to wit, ineffective assistance of counsel based on lack of advisement of the consequences of his plea with respect to sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) (the “Three Strikes” law).

Pursuant to section 1237.5 and

Appellant's argument that he was coerced into entering into the plea agreement challenges the validity of the plea and is not cognizable on appeal because he failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause.  (People v. McEwan (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 173, 178 [under statute requiring certificate of probable cause for appeal following guilty or nolo plea that raises issues going to validity of plea, certificate must be obtained when defendant claims that plea was induced by misrepresentations of fundamental nature, that plea was entered at a time when defendant was mentally incompetent, or that warnings regarding effect of guilty plea on right to appeal were inadequate].)

Even were we to treat appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we conclude that appellant's claims are not supported by the record.   He claims that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of his plea, specifically with respect to the Three Strikes law.   The record shows, however, that appellant was advised of and acknowledged that he understood all the consequences of his plea, including that his plea would be used to increase or enhance punishment if he is convicted of another felony in the future.

We have examined 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, 441.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

FN2. The supplemental brief filed on October 14, 2010, is a duplicate of the supplemental brief filed on October 8, 2010..  FN2. The supplemental brief filed on October 14, 2010, is a duplicate of the supplemental brief filed on October 8, 2010.

THE COURT: * FN*.  BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.