Opinion
C051099
4-26-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BASILIO RAIMUNDO MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
In exchange for the dismissal of a charge of murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and a stipulated sentence of 15 years, defendant Basilio Raimundo Mitchell pled no contest to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and admitted use of a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)).
The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 15 years in state prison and restitution fines of $3,000 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA
While defendant was in a weight room preparing to work out, the victim walked by the defendant. The defendant produced a handgun, said something to the victim and then shot the victim twice, killing him. Defendant had been diagnosed with a mental illness involving a delusional disorder.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief and he has done so.
Defendants supplemental brief consists of five handwritten, single spaced pages, without any citation to the record or supporting authority, in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his plea, asserts that he was mistreated in the jail, and claims that he was prosecuted because he is a Black man who killed a White man.
Defendants no contest plea forecloses any challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1181.)
Defendants purported mistreatment in jail following his arrest for the homicide is neither relevant to the killing nor is it supported by the record.
Defendants claim that his prosecution was racially motivated is one of invidious discrimination (see In re Antazo (1970) 3 Cal.3d 100, 109), which is a constitutional challenge to the validity of his plea and, therefore, requires a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Since defendant does not have such a certificate, he may not obtain appellate review of the issue.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
BLEASE, Acting P.J.
RAYE, J.