From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lockett

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Apr 27, 2009
No. B208530 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. A824707, Darlene Schempp, Judge.

Katharine Eileen Greenebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


EPSTEIN, P. J.

Melvin Dwayne Lockett appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of coram nobis. In an information filed May 25, 1989, appellant was charged in count 1 with residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) It was further alleged he had suffered three prior convictions and served prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On May 17, 1990, appellant pled no contest to count 1. On June 29, 1990, pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for the low term of two years, with credit given for 487 days in custody plus 244 days of conduct credit for a total of 731 days. The court stayed sentence on the special allegations and based on the time appellant had served, he was ordered released.

On April 2, 2008, appellant filed a petition for writ of coram nobis requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied on May 16, 2008, on the ground that the issue could have been raised on appeal.

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On December 26, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On January 15, 2008, appellant filed a supplemental brief. He claimed he had been deprived of effective representation at trial. He stated as a result of the instant conviction, he was serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison, a sentence that was enhanced for being an armed career criminal. He additionally asserted he had not attacked the instant conviction earlier in that he had been unaware of the lingering consequences of such a conviction and had moved out of state.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. A claim that defendant was deprived of effective representation of counsel is not an appropriate basis for relief by writ of coram nobis. (People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 987.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

On August 31, 2005, appellant filed in superior court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. On October 20, 2005, the petition was denied. Thereafter, appellant filed in this court a notice of appeal from the denial order. By order dated February 3, 2006, in case number B188683, the notice of appeal was dismissed as being taken from a nonappealable judgment or order.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

We concur: WILLHITE, J., MANELLA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Lockett

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Apr 27, 2009
No. B208530 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Lockett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN DWAYNE LOCKETT, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Apr 27, 2009

Citations

No. B208530 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2009)