Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YA074126 John Meigs, Judge.
Ann Bergen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZELON, J.
After Rodney Bernard James repeatedly threatened to kill Tamekia Newman, spray painted her car and slashed the tires, tossed a brick through her living room window, and appeared at her front door in possession of a gun, he was arrested and charged by information on March 20, 2009, with five felony counts: three counts of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422), one count of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), and one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). The information specially alleged James had suffered one serious or violent felony conviction, making him subject to sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged defendant had previously served one separate term for a felony (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At his arraignment, James pleaded not guilty to the counts and denied the special allegations.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On November 3, 2009, the trial court granted James’s motion to represent himself (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562]) and relieved James’s appointed counsel.
On March 9, 2010, James, representing himself, entered into a plea agreement with the prosecutor that provided he would plead no contest to stalking (count 6) and admit the prior strike conviction and the prior prison term allegations in return for a state prison sentence of six years, consisting of double the three-year upper term.
James was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to an aggregate state prison term of six years. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court awarded James presentence custody credit of 813 days (407 actual days and 406 days of conduct credit). The court ordered James to pay a $30 security assessment, a $30 criminal assessment, and a $200 restitution fine. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. On the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed the prior prison term enhancement and the remaining counts and special allegations.
James filed a timely notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted box indicating, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” He also checked the preprinted box, indicating he was rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and was never charged or arraigned on the stalking offense. His certificate of probable cause was denied.
After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 27, 2010, we advised James he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
Section 1237.5, subdivision (a), provides a defendant may not appeal a judgment of conviction entered on a plea of guilty or no contest unless he or she has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings, ” and has obtained a certificate of probable cause for the appeal. (See People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) If, however, the appeal is based solely upon grounds occurring after entry of the plea that do not challenge its validity, such as sentencing issues, a certificate of probable cause is not required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B); People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
With respect to the issues specifically identified in the notice of appeal—his failure to be either charged or arraigned on the stalking offense, James is simply wrong. As the trial court found in denying James’s request for a certificate of probable cause, the record shows James was charged by information with stalking in count 6 and was arraigned on that count on March 20, 2009, while represented by counsel. With respect to other potential sentencing or post-plea issues that do not in substance challenge the validity of the plea itself, we have examined the record and are satisfied James’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979)25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Finally, the record fails to demonstrate defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at any time during the proceedings in the trial court. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., JACKSON, J.