Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court No. BA308414 of Los Angeles County. Patricia J. Titus, Judge, Steven R. Vansicklen, Judge, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.
Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FLIER, J.
Appellant Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue, also known as Reggie Darryl Jones, was charged with two counts of forgery (Pen. Code, § 476) and two counts of passing a fictitious check (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)). The information further alleged five prior felony convictions for fraud or theft-related offenses, all of which occurred in Los Angeles County between 2003 and 2005. (§§ 1203, subd. (e)(4), 667.5, subd. (b).) Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty solely to the two forgery counts. He was immediately sentenced to prison for the low term of one year four months on one count, with a concurrent sentence on the other. He appealed but did not request a certificate of probable cause. He used the address of the Men’s Central Jail as his address on the notice of appeal.
The above name appears on the information. At the plea proceedings, according to the reporter’s transcript, appellant gave his true name as “Sexual Sin Dion Abdul Blue.” He signed the notice of appeal as “Mr. Sexual Blue.”
On August 9, 2007, this court sent appellant a request that he complete a declaration about his financial ability to pay for counsel. The correspondence was mailed to appellant at Wasco State Prison. It was returned to us on the ground that appellant had been paroled.
On November 2, 2007, this court appointed counsel, Mr. Murray A. Rosenberg, to represent appellant. His address is in Studio City.
On November 20, 2007, Rosenberg filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On that same date, we notified appellant that a Wende brief had been filed and he had 30 days to submit any arguments he wished us to consider. That notification was mailed to an address on Virginia Avenue in Los Angeles. The postal service returned it to us on the ground the forwarding time had expired. The postal service’s stamp shows another address for appellant, a post office box in Hollywood, zip code 90078-0742.
Appellant did not file his own brief. However, on January 14, 2008, he filed a letter requesting that we relieve Rosenberg, dismiss the Wende brief, and appoint new counsel for him or give him time to obtain his own counsel. On February 15, 2008, we ordered Rosenberg to file a response to appellant’s letter. He has done so.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that appellant gave a landlady two bad checks when he rented a house from her.
Following the preliminary hearing, appellant proceeded without counsel pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. He filed numerous motions, some of which were granted, and some of which were not. The granted motions included requests for a private investigator, standby counsel, ancillary funds, a handwriting expert, and a continuance. The denied motions included requests to dismiss for delay in prosecution, to compel the People to elect between the offenses, to suppress evidence, to traverse the arrest warrant, to have an expert appointed regarding police practices, to have an expert appointed regarding neurology, and to disqualify the judge who ruled on the motions. He also filed proposals for plea bargains.
On July 9, 2007, appellant pled no contest to the two forgery counts following a full advisement of his rights. He stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. He was immediately sentenced to the low term of one year four months in prison with total custody credits of 438 days. He filed the notice of appeal that same day.
In his request for appointment of a new attorney dated January 14, 2008, appellant states that he has had no contact with his appointed attorney and has not discussed the case with him. He says that when he attempted to discuss the case with his attorney, the attorney refused to discuss the case with him, to provide him with the record on appeal, or to send a copy of the brief to him. According to appellant, his attorney hung up on him, saying “that he was not going to send him anything be[c]ause he was the attorney.”
Appellant’s letter also indicates that he has a motion pending in the superior court to withdraw his plea, and denial of that motion will become a part of this appeal. Appellant is mistaken, as this appeal concerns the proceedings prior to the filing of the notice of appeal.
Rosenberg’s response indicates that both he and an attorney at the California Appellate Project (CAP) concluded that this case was a Wende matter. The appointment letter of November 2, 2007, specified an address at the men’s jail, but Rosenberg knew appellant was no longer incarcerated, based on the length of the sentence and amount of custody credits. Rosenberg decided to use an address on Virginia Avenue that was named in the probation report. Using that address, he sent appellant (1) a letter of November 6, 2007, regarding his appointment; (2) a letter of November 19, 2007, regarding his intention to file a Wende brief; and (3) on November 20, 2007, a package that included the appellate transcripts, a copy of the Wende brief, and a letter that contained instructions for filing a supplemental brief in propria persona. The package was sent by priority mail to the Virginia Avenue address with a delivery confirmation receipt. Rosenberg assumed at that time that appellant received all of the communications that were mailed to that address.
The probation report states that appellant gave the address on Virginia Avenue as his address when he was arrested, and “parole” verified that appellant lived there.
The postal receipt is included in Rosenberg’s correspondence to this court.
Rosenberg’s response further indicates that he received a telephone call from appellant on December 3, 2007. Appellant asked about his case and said he had received nothing in the mail from Rosenberg. He did not give Rosenberg an address, but supplied several telephone numbers where he said he could be reached. He was very unhappy that a Wende brief had been filed. The conversation ended when they were suddenly cut off. Rosenberg thought that appellant was using a cell phone that lost the connection.
Rosenberg’s response denies that he hung up on appellant, refused to discuss the case with him, or refused to send him the transcripts or a copy of the Wende brief. He believes that appellant made no further attempt to contact him. Later on December 3, 2007, he checked the website of the U.S. Postal Service. The website indicated that the package he mailed to appellant had been returned to the Studio City post office. He left messages for appellant at the telephone numbers appellant had given, but appellant did not call him back. The next day, the package came back to Rosenberg’s address in Studio City. He called this court, spoke to a woman in the clerk’s office, and explained his problem ascertaining appellant’s current address. He also sent this court a letter that discussed the problem.
We filed that letter on December 7, 2007.
On December 7, 2007, Rosenberg was contacted by an attorney from CAP who had received a telephone call from appellant. That attorney gave Rosenberg the address appellant gave her, which is a post office box in Hollywood with a zip code of 90027. Rosenberg sent this court another letter indicating that he would be forwarding the transcripts and a copy of the Wende brief to that address. He did so, as shown by another delivery confirmation receipt that is attached to his response to this court. The package has never come back to Rosenberg.
That letter also appears in our file.
Finally, the response indicates that, after Rosenberg received the order from this court, he checked the postal service’s website. He then ascertained that the package was listed as delivered, but to a Hollywood zip code of 90078.
From our review of the record, we are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) We are also satisfied that no good cause has been shown for relieving appellate counsel, and that Rosenberg has made a commendable effort to attempt to comply with his responsibilities.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Appellant’s request that counsel be relieved is denied.
We concur: COOPER, P. J., RUBIN, J.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.