Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ct. No. KA080275, Charles E. Horan, Judge.
Gildardo Juarez Sanchez, in pro. per., and Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Gildardo Sanchez waived jury and was convicted of residential burglary and grand theft. The conviction was based on an incident of August 23, 2007, in which defendant broke into a Covina residence, put valuable items in a plastic bag, and was apprehended outside the house with $400 of the victims’ cash in his pocket. The court also found that defendant had suffered two prior convictions under the “Three Strikes” law, one of which also qualified for a five-year sentence enhancement. The strike convictions were based on a 2002 plea in which defendant admitted he had committed two armed robberies on separate occasions. (Defendant was sentenced to state prison on the robberies and was released on parole in December 2006.) Defendant’s motion in this case to dismiss strikes in furtherance of justice was denied. He was sentenced to state prison for 30 years to life.
Defendant appealed from the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442, in which no issues were raised. We then notified defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Defendant has done so.
In his submission to this court, defendant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to collaterally challenge the validity of his prior convictions and failing either to make a plea offer to the prosecutor or to tell defendant that an offer had been made. Defendant further faults appellate counsel for failing to raise these issues on appeal.
“To show ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden of proving that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. [Citations.]” (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 519-520; accord, People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215-218.) “Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his act or omission. In all other cases the conviction will be affirmed and the defendant relegated to habeas corpus proceedings at which evidence [outside of] the record may be taken to determine the basis, if any, for counsel’s conduct or omission. [Citation.]” (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581-582; accord, People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
We have examined the entire record, including the reference to an “offer” on page A-2 of the reporter’s transcript and all documents pertinent to defendant’s plea in 2002. That examination does not reveal any basis on which to determine that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance or that any error occurred with respect to the issues raised by defendant. Accordingly, we conclude that appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist in this appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., WEISBERG, J.
Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.