Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA180631, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JOHNSON, J.
A second amended information filed September 29, 1999 charged Ben Aris Ramirez with robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 (count 1), being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2), and unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of Penal Code section 12316, subdivision (b)(1) (count 3). The information also alleged with regard to counts 1 and 3 that Ramirez personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses, in violation of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1).
On November 3, 1999, a jury found Ramirez guilty on counts 1 and 3. A mistrial was declared as to the firearm enhancement under count 1, and as to count 2. On May 8, 2001, Ramirez was sentenced to four years in state prison on count 1, a concurrent term of two years on count 3, and was ordered to pay a restititution fine.
Ramirez filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in superior court on October 4, 2010. An investigator’s report and a crime report attached to the writ petition provided the following facts. On January 21, 1999, police responded to a call that a suspect with a gun was arguing with a male on the third floor of a motel on Sunset Boulevard. When the police arrived they observed Ramirez and another male running down the stairs from the third floor, and the victim shouted that they had pulled a gun on him and robbed him. The police took the two men into custody and during a patdown search found a magazine with three live rounds in Ramirez’s pocket. The other man had the victim’s wallet in his back pocket. A semi-automatic handgun was found on the third step of the stairwell, and the victim identified the gun as the weapon used during the robbery.
The petition alleged that Ramirez was denied effective assistance of counsel, as his trial counsel had promised to file a notice of appeal from his conviction, but failed to do so. On November 18, 2010, the superior court denied the petition as untimely, duplicative, and successive. Ramirez filed a notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. On May 3, 2011, we advised Ramirez he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s ruling on the petition for the writ. (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1095.) A constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “cannot be vindicated on coram nobis.” (Ibid.) Further, a petitioner for the writ must show due diligence, and the burden falls on Ramirez to explain and justify the delay in filing the petition, as well as to allege with specificity the time and circumstance under which the facts were discovered. (Id. at pp. 1096–1097, 1098–1099.) Ramirez did not carry this burden. He filed his petition almost 11 years after his conviction, and states only that he discovered that it was too late to file an appeal after he was deported to El Salvador upon completion of his sentence, without specifying the year. Finally, the trial court stated that in June 2009 the court denied Ramirez’s motion to set aside the guilty verdict, based on similar claims. “[A] litigant seeking extraordinary relief from a final judgment is not entitled to bring his legal claims to court seriatim.... [Citations.] As with petitions for writs of habeas corpus, one seeking relief via coram nobis may not attack a final judgment in piecemeal fashion, in proceedings filed seriatim, in the hopes of finally convincing a court to issue the writ.” (Id. at p. 1101.) The trial court did not deny its discretion in denying the petition.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Ramirez’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.