Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA064878 Mark S. Arnold, Judge.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERLUSS, P. J.
As the result of a gang-related shooting, Jonathan Gamez was charged by information with five counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664) and five counts of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246). As to all counts, the information specially alleged firearm-use enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e)), and a criminal street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)).
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
According to the testimony at the preliminary hearing, Antonio Martinez IV, Angelo Martinez, Leonard Caudillo, Steven Martinez and Gerardo Zaragoza were riding together in a car in Lennox. While stopped at the intersection of 111th Street and Inglewood Avenue, they were confronted by a group of men who appeared to be gang members. The men demanded to know where the occupants of the car were from (a frequent gang challenge), displayed gang hand signs and shouted they were from the Lennox 13 gang. One man in the group pulled out a gun, pointed it in the direction of the car and began shooting at the car’s occupants from about 12 feet away. Two of the occupants were injured by the gun shots; one of them lost the sight in one of his eyes. Three of the car occupants, as well as other witnesses, identified Gamez as the shooter.
This victim’s surname appears in the trial court record both as “Zaragoza” and “Saragoza.”
At a pretrial hearing Gamez pleaded no contest to three amended counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted one great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7), one criminal street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and three firearm-use enhancements (§ 12022.5). Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Gamez was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 31 years 8 months. Gamez received presentence custody credit of 388 days (338 actual days and 50 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Gamez to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45. The court also ordered payment of victim restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f). The remaining charges and special allegations were dismissed on the People’s motion.
Gamez’s codefendant Jose Murillo negotiated a similar plea and sentence.
Gamez filed a timely notice of appeal, but failed to seek or to obtain a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On October 29, 2007 we advised Gamez he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Gamez’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (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, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, the only issues Gamez may raise are ones relating to the validity of a contested search and seizure (§ 1538.5) and proceedings held subsequent to the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) In his notice of appeal Gamez claims “ineffective assistance of counsel,” in that unspecified “motions were not filed by my attorney of record.” 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].)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J. ZELON, J.