Opinion
2d Crim. No. B227144 Super. Ct. No. YA065363
10-27-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN STEVEN GARNER, Defendant and Appellant.
Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; John Garner, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County)
John Steven Garner appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant also admitted that he personally used a firearm in committing both crimes (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 26 years four months in state prison.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Because appellant pled guilty prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the preliminary hearing transcript. Appellant went to the apartment building where Michsall Jones lived and used a handgun to break her living room window. Appellant entered the apartment through the broken window and fired three shots at Jones, hitting her in the head, shoulder, and hand. After Jones jumped out the broken window and ran away, appellant ran downstairs to the apartment where Jones's fiancé James Hill lived. Appellant entered Hill's apartment through a patio door and shot him in the left thigh.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On March 1, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a timely response in which he contends (1) the victims and witnesses gave inconsistent or false statements; (2) a police detective "handled the case poorly" and made statements that were either false, inconsistent, or unsubstantiated; (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the crimes of which he was convicted; and (4) his trial attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.
None of appellant's claims are reviewable on appeal. "When a defendant pleads not guilty and is convicted as the result of a trial, in general any issue bearing on the determination of guilt and apparent from the record is cognizable on appeal. (See § 1237.) By contrast, when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest and is convicted without a trial, only limited issues are cognizable on appeal. A guilty plea admits every element of the charged offense and constitutes a conviction [citations], and consequently issues that concern the determination of guilt or innocence are not cognizable. [Citations.] Instead, appellate review is limited to issues that concern the 'jurisdiction of the court or the legality of the proceedings, including the constitutional validity of the plea.' [Citations.]" (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649, fn. omitted.) In addition, "section 1237.5 authorizes an appeal [following a guilty plea] only as to a particular category of issues," and to have these issues considered on appeal, a defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Id. at p. 650.)
All of the claims raised by appellant concern the determination of his guilt or innocence or are not reviewable under section 1237.5. Because appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, we cannot review his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (§ 1237.5; see also People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244-245.) In any event, appellant fails to show that trial counsel failed to act in a manner expected of reasonably competent attorneys or that he had suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel's alleged incompetence. (People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 269; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
John V. Meigs, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; John Garner, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.