Opinion
G037679
4-18-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CHRISTOPHER LAMBERT, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Defendant John Christopher Lambert pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery and one count of commercial burglary and admitted six prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) in exchange for a sentence of 15 years in prison. The sentence consisted of a doubled low term (four years) for one robbery, three consecutive one-third midterms, doubled, for the remaining robberies, and five years for a prior serious felony. A misdemeanor count of brandishing a firearm, a count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and two counts of a felon in possession of a firearm, plus enhancements were dismissed. After obtaining a certificate of probable cause, defendant appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth the plea bargain, the only relevant facts. Defendant admitted the four robberies, the commercial burglary, and his use of "an imitation firearm" in three of the robberies. Counsel did not argue against defendant but advised the court he had not found any issues to present on defendants behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He suggested two issues to assist us in our independent review of the record: Did defendants lawyer pressure him into pleading guilty and was trial counsel ineffective.
We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present, including those suggested by counsel. There is no evidence in the record to show defendant was pressured to plead guilty nor that trial counsel was ineffective, notwithstanding statements in his request for a certificate of probable cause to that effect. Defendant stated on the record he had discussed the charges with his lawyer and was voluntarily and freely pleading guilty. These issues are better raised in a petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf and submitted a supplemental letter brief. He argued his trial lawyer was ineffective because he did not "pursue[] avenues" to aid defense of the case but told defendant he would never get a better sentence. Again, this is not an argument we can determine on appeal but should be raised in a petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 266-267.)
We have examined the record and found no other issues. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We Concur:
MOORE, J.
ARONSON, J.