Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. KA080871, Daniel J. Buckley, Judge.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Hector Jimenez Perez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the People amended the information to add a second count, charging defendant Hector Jimenez Perez with drawing or exhibiting a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor. Defendant pled guilty to count 2, after which the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on summary probation for three years under certain terms and conditions and gave him credit for time served. Count 1, charging defendant with assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)) and alleging sentencing enhancements, was dismissed.
In light of the plea agreement, defendant withdrew his Penal Code section 995 motion, which had been directed at count 1.
Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal in which he requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied his request.
We discern the facts from the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing.
Around 10:20 a.m. on October 19, 2007, defendant was standing in the door of his garage when Camilo Urbina (Urbina) drove by. Because defendant stared at Urbina, the latter turned around, drove back to defendant’s garage and asked defendant if he knew him. Defendant aggressively responded that he did not know Urbina. Defendant then pulled out an automatic handgun from his rear waistband and held it with the barrel facing up. Urbina got out of his car and started arguing with defendant from a distance of about six feet. When Urbina walked toward defendant, defendant pointed the gun at Urbina.
Defendant called his wife and gave her the gun. A fight between defendant and Urbina then ensued. Urbina got the worst of it but did not leave the scene, in that he overhead someone say the police had been called.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On April 30, 2008, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments that he wanted us to consider. On May 14, 2008, defendant filed a supplemental letter brief in which he contends that Urbina “told many lies,” that there is not enough evidence to establish that defendant pulled out a gun and pointed it at Urbina, and that defendant’s trial counsel failed to interview witnesses to the alleged crime.
By pleading guilty, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the offense to which he pled. (People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 43; People v. Moore (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 94, 99.) Consequently, his sufficiency of the evidence claim does not survive his guilty plea. (Thurman, supra, at p. 43; Moore, supra, at p. 99.)
Construing defendant’s criticism of his trial counsel as a claim that counsel denied him the effective assistance of counsel prior to entry of his guilty plea, we conclude that absent a certificate of probable cause, this issue is not cognizable on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; cf. People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 596; People v. Moore, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 99; People v. Natividad (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 438, 441.) “A certificate of probable cause is a condition precedent to any appeal within its scope, and the defendant must comply with all statutory requirements.” (People v. Thurman, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 41.) An appellate court has no authority to waive any of these requirements. (Id. at p. 42.)
Defendant’s further explanation that he pled guilty because his wife and five children needed him, that he has worked as a security guard for seven years, and that he retrieved his weapon from his “safety box” when the police came to his home do not constitute grounds for reversal of his conviction predicated on his plea of guilty.
Apart from a consideration of the contentions raised by defendant in his supplemental letter brief, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has complied fully with her responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL, J., NEIDORF, J.
Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.