Opinion
B189445
12-4-2006
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID HUNT, Defendant and Appellant.
Rodney Richard Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Hunt appeals from judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree burglary, arson, and unlawfully causing a fire that caused an inhabited structure to burn. Evidence at appellants trial established that he broke into his ex-girlfriends apartment and set two fires, causing damage to the apartment and to her personal property. Appellant admitted allegations he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction for the purposes of the Three Strikes Law and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and that he had served a prior prison term. The court sentenced him to a second strike term of 13 years in prison.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On October 6, 2006, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. In response, appellant filed a letter brief raising two issues.
Appellant argues his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (1) investigate and question witnesses, (2) raise issues regarding "showing the tape during trial," (3) inform the court that appellant was heavily medicated and housed at Wayside during trial, and (4) visit appellant and accept his collect telephone calls.
A claim that counsel was ineffective requires a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, of objectively unreasonable performance by counsel and a reasonable probability that, but for counsels errors, appellant would have obtained a more favorable result. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.)
Appellants ineffective assistance contentions regarding witnesses, his housing location and medication, and visits and phone calls would all appear to rely upon matters outside the appellate record. Appellant has established neither deficient performance by his attorney nor prejudice in regard to these issues. With respect to "the tape," appellants claim fails because he has not indicated what issues counsel should have raised. He therefore failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice. We also note that no tape was shown at trial. Only still photographs taken from what was apparently a digital video recorder were shown.
Appellant also contends the probation report falsely stated he served 10 years in prison. The report states that in 1997 he was "ordered to serve ten years in state prison," not that he served 10 years. Trial courts are readily familiar with the award of pre- and post-sentence credits under the Penal Code. The experienced trial judge would have been aware that appellant did not actually serve the full 10 year term. Moreover, the court would have been alerted to this fact by the date of the present offense (July 29, 2005) and the probation reports recitation of appellants conviction of reckless driving in August 2003.
We have examined the entire record and appellants contentions, and have not found any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
COOPER, P. J.
FLIER, J.