Opinion
E053399
12-29-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHEVELLE LAHOMA PARKS, Defendant and Appellant.
Kari E. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. FVI1001170)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn Poncin, Judge. Affirmed.
Kari E. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Chevelle Lahoma Parks was charged with obtaining aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2), count 1), defrauding a public housing authority (Pen. Code, § 487i, count 2), and perjury by false application for aid (Pen. Code, § 118, counts 3 & 4). She pled not guilty to the charges. The prosecution subsequently added the charge of identity theft. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, count 5.) Defendant withdrew her plea of not guilty. She waived her constitutional rights and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to counts 1 and 5. The court dismissed the remaining counts pursuant to the plea agreement. The court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison on count 1 and two years on count 5, to run concurrent. The court awarded her 30 days' custody credits (15 actual days plus 15 conduct).
Defendant filed a notice of appeal in pro. per. alleging that she had been denied effective assistance of counsel in that she received legal advice that "[fell] below the [s]tandard required to be adequate." Appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal, alleging that defendant was challenging the validity of the plea, based on "misadvisement" by trial counsel, which constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court granted. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript. On February 28, 2006, defendant applied for section 8 financial assistance through the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino. The section 8 program distributed federal funds to low income individuals to help them with their rent. Defendant was required to complete an initial application and annual updates thereafter to renew her aid. She listed three people who lived with her (her three daughters). The initial application and renewal packets inquired as to the arrest status of members of the household. Arrest or convictions for specified crimes were material to the decision whether or not to grant aid. Defendant indicated on her application that no one in her household had been arrested or convicted of any crime. That section of the application was signed under penalty of perjury. Defendant was granted aid in the amount of $530 per month. She completed renewal applications on February 11, 2009, and February 8, 2010, and again indicated that no one in her household had been arrested or convicted of any crime.
Section 8 is a federal housing subsidy program administered by HUD. (42 U.S.C. § 1437f.)
On May 20, 2010, Deputy Sean Struebing investigated a welfare fraud complaint at defendant's address. He contacted defendant and her 20-year-old daughter, Lashay. Defendant admitted that her daughter had been arrested and placed on felony probation for resisting arrest, two years prior. She also said she had been receiving section 8 assistance for about three years. Deputy Struebing showed defendant copies of her housing authority applications, and defendant confirmed that she had signed each of the documents. She admitted that her daughter was on felony probation when she signed the documents. Defendant then changed her story and said that her daughter was not living with her at the time she signed the documents. When questioned further, defendant said her daughter was living with her and was supposed to move out, but ended up staying with her.
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case and the following potential arguable issue: Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise defendant not to enter into a plea agreement? Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur: KING
J.
MILLER
J.