Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. A632203, Jerry E. Johnson, Judge.
Harold Bridges, in pro. per., and Robert Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
VOGEL, J.
In August 1985, in case number A632203, Harold Bridges pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) Bridges’s subsequent motion to withdraw his plea was denied, and probation was granted on condition that he spend one year in county jail.
Almost 20 years later, in 2004, Bridges filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming he had been “illegally convicted” in the 1985 case because, he said, his guilty plea had been entered in a different case (A631674) that had been pending at the same time. The trial court denied the coram nobis petition, and also denied Bridges’s subsequent habeas corpus petition raising the same issue. We affirmed. (People v. Bridges (Mar. 24, 2005, B178529) [nonpub.opn.].)
In July 2007, Bridges (then incarcerated in a federal prison) filed another pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, once again seeking relief from his “invalid” conviction in the 1985 case (A632203), explaining that his “invalid” conviction was “being used to enhance [his] sentence” in his federal drug case. This time, Bridges also asserted a “claim of actual innocent” [sic], and a charge that the lawyer who represented him in the 1985 case provided ineffective assistance because he could have developed evidence (testimony by Bridges’s girlfriend) to defend him against the charge in that case. In substance if not form, this petition is the equivalent of a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition.
Bridges filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. On March 14, 2008, Bridges’s lawyer filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 18, we notified Bridges that he had 30 days within which to submit any arguments or issues he wanted us to consider. On April 4, Bridges filed a “supplemental brief” in which he asserts that his “habeas petition [was] timely” because he “only recently learned of the facts and legal basis which support his habeas petition.” This claim lacks merit for the simple reason that the trial court denied the petition on the merits, not on the ground that it was untimely.
We have independently examined the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that Bridges’s lawyer has fulfilled his duty. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P.J., ROTHSCHILD, J.