Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA295572, Michael A. Tynan, Judge.
Robert McCullum, in pro. per.; and Maureen L. Fox, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Robert McCullam appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to cocaine sales and his admission that he had sustained a prior conviction under the “Three Strikes” law. We affirm.
Defendant first appeared in propria persona. While the criminal complaint was pending, the matter was dismissed when the People were unable to proceed (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BA292498), and the case was immediately refiled under Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA295572. Defendant filed a demurrer, which was unsuccessful. At the preliminary hearing, evidence was adduced that on October 27, 2005, a plainclothes Los Angeles police officer working in a “buy-bust operation” asked defendant if he could buy $10 worth of crack cocaine, defendant pointed to another man who defendant said had the cocaine, and the officer purchased cocaine from that man. A motion to suppress evidence was heard simultaneously with the preliminary hearing and was denied. An information was then filed.
Defendant next filed a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995, which was also deemed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The motions were denied. Defendant’s subsequent request to be represented by counsel was granted. Discovery under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 was ordered at an in camera hearing.
Defendant thereafter entered the plea and the admissions noted above. He was released on his own recognizance on condition that he enter a treatment program and remain there until authorized for release. Defendant later absconded from the program and his own recognizance status was revoked. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a four-year middle term, doubled under the Three Strikes law, for a total of eight years. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause. The request was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) We then sent letters to defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate record to defendant and notifying defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider.
In response, defendant submitted a supplemental brief in which he argued that irregularities existed with respect to the case having been refiled, that the facts alleged did not constitute a public offense, that he was improperly denied discovery, that police officers failed to follow an established “buy-bust” procedure in arresting him, and that he was the victim of judicial bias. Defendant further argued that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to call a witness.
After the supplemental brief had been filed, defendant filed a motion to augment the record on appeal to include documents and transcripts of proceedings from both the case that had been dismissed and the case under appeal. In response to that motion, we vacated submission of the matter and ordered that the record be augmented with transcripts of certain oral proceedings. We also took judicial notice of both trial court files and ordered that copies of documents from both files that were relevant to defendant’s motion to augment be forwarded to the parties. Finally, we provided defendant with the opportunity to submit additional arguments in response to the new transcripts and documents.
Defendant next submitted a second supplemental response. In it, he asserted that he is unable to adequately prepare additional arguments due to the failure to preserve critical portions of the record, namely, a record of oral proceedings on his arraignment after the case had been refiled. He also asked to determine the importance of the missing record and the availability of alternatives.
Several of the arguments raised by defendant cannot be reached because defendant failed to secure a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) In addition, no legal requirement exists that would compel officers to follow a specific “buy-bust” procedure in order to make a valid arrest. Defendant’s demurrer asserted that no public offense was stated and that refiling the complaint was improper, but he has not offered any authority in support of those assertions. Nor has defendant suggested why a reporter’s transcript of proceedings reflecting his arraignment on refiling, the minute order of which is part of the record on appeal, could provide a basis for reversal of the judgment.
Finally, “[i]n order to prevail on [an ineffective assistance of counsel] claim defendant must prove (1) his attorney’s representation was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) his attorney’s deficient representation subjected him to prejudice. [Citations.] Prejudice for purposes of this analysis is demonstrated by showing a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable for the defendant. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [Citation.]” (People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 28.) Based on this record, the arguments in defendant’s supplemental briefs regarding ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected.
We have examined the entire original and augmented record on appeal, as well as both trial court files in this case. Based on that review, we are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v.Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JOHNSON, J.