Opinion
B230583
06-17-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEX JUAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Alex Juarez, in pro. per.; California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Super. Ct. No. A037924)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jesus I. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Juarez, in pro. per.; California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Alex Juarez was charged with first degree murder with an allegation of use of a dangerous and deadly weapon. In November 1987, he entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree murder, and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the weapon enhancement allegation. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 15 years to life. One term of the plea agreement was that defendant would be housed initially in a Youth Authority facility pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5, subdivision (c), which, in 1987, as now, provides for the Director of Corrections to transfer inmates under the age of 21 to the Youth Authority for housing until either the inmate reaches the age of 25 or the Director of the Youth Authority orders him returned to the Department of Corrections.
In December of 2010, defendant filed in Los Angeles Superior Court a Motion to Correct Erroneous Condition of Mandated Parole Provision. In the motion, he argued that the trial court erroneously "mandated" as a condition of parole that defendant be returned to state prison for up to 18 months for each parole violation. The trial court denied the motion, stating that it had read the sentencing transcript and the sentencing court did not impose that condition or provision. Defendants application for a certificate of probable cause was denied, but he filed a timely appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. We advised defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider, and he responded by filing a supplemental brief.
In his supplemental brief, defendant raises numerous contentions not raised in the motion he filed in the trial court, such as that the prosecutor promised that defendant would only serve 6 years, then be released from custody on his 25th birthday; defendant was not advised by the judge of his right to withdraw his plea; and defendant would not have pleaded guilty if he had been advised he was receiving a prison term and of "the correct parole consequence." None of these claims are cognizable in this appeal from the trial courts denial of his motion. Even if we were to consider these claims, they are not supported by the appellate record and defendant has not established prejudice. We further note that defendant previously raised identical claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus that this court denied. (No. B227736.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
MALLANO, P. J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
CHANEY, J.