Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA285019. Judith Champagne, Judge.
Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Christopher D. Muldrew appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and his admission that he used a firearm during the commission of the offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b)). He also admitted that he suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a) – (d) and 667, subds. (b) – (i)) and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for a total of 25 years. He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On June 7, 2005, at approximately 6:00 p.m., four or five cars, one white in color, drove up to a house on West 67th Street and some of the vehicles’ occupants began shooting at people standing outside. Appellant and another individual were hit. Appellant was then seen walking toward a car. A couple of hours later, Angelique Taylor was driving home on 66th Street in her 2003 white Chevy Impala when a brown car swerved toward her and appellant, the front passenger, shot a gun at her three times. Police officers witnessed the brown car run a red light and collide with another car and apprehended appellant and the driver of the brown car. After the collision, a 9-millimeter handgun was found on the front passenger seat of the brown car.
Appellant’s Marsden motion was heard and denied.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
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 July 10, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Thereafter, he requested additional time to file a brief.
On September 6, 2007, he filed a supplemental brief contending the field identification was suggestive, his co-defendant’s confession was improperly used, evidence was insufficient to warrant a trial or conviction, reciprocal discovery was denied, police made a warrantless search of the vehicle without good faith or a search warrant, the plea agreement was not approved by the court prior to allocution of sentence by the trial court, and the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right at sentencing. He also claims he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and his appellate counsel.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, the only issues appellant may raise are ones relating to the validity of the search and seizure which was contested pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and proceedings held subsequent to the plea. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Issues related to the field identification, co-defendant’s confession, sufficiency of evidence, and discovery are, therefore, not cognizable on appeal. Further, having failed to challenge the validity of any search and seizure pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, appellant is precluded from challenging it now. Further, the record indicates the plea agreement was approved by the court and that the trial court found a factual basis for the plea. Additionally, contrary to appellant’s claim the transcript of appellant’s sentencing does not indicate the trial court made any adverse inferences based on appellant’s silence. Appellant additionally has failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel. (See People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007-1008.) 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.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J., WILLHITE, J.