Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCN282172 and petition for writ of habeas corpus, Aaron H. Katz, Judge.
McIntyre, J.
Hamic Steed appeals after a jury found him guilty of reckless evasion of a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).
Acting in propria persona, Steed filed a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the finding on one of the four prison priors that the trial court found true. He also claims that he received ineffective assistance from his appellate counsel. We affirm the judgment and deny Steed's habeas petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 9, 2010, Escondido Police Officer Mike Nelson was traveling northbound on Interstate 15 in the Escondido area when Steed cut in front of him and passed him traveling at excess of 100 miles per hour. Officer Nelson immediately activated his lights and siren and drove up to 120 miles per hour trying to catch up with Steed's car. Officer Nelson observed Steed make several unsafe lane changes, causing other vehicles to swerve to avoid collisions. Steed exited the freeway and failed to stop at a stop sign. Steed drove through several red lights and ignored multiple requests over the loudspeaker to pull over. Several other officers then joined the pursuit. Steed drove through another red light and ignored the requests of the other officers to pull over. Steed drove around a spike strip as three motorcycles and four patrol cars continued to pursue him. Eventually, Steed slowed down enough to allow a female passenger to leave the car. Steed then stopped his car and was taken into custody. The entire pursuit was 14.3 miles long and lasted about 15 minutes.
An information charged Steed with reckless evasion of a police officer (count 1) and driving under the influence (count 2). The matter proceeded to trial on count 1, with the prosecution showing a video animation of the pursuit route with Officer Nelson describing the video. After the jury found Steed guilty as charged, the trial court found true the four prison prior allegations. The trial court sentenced Steed to the mid-term of two years and imposed four consecutive one-year prison terms for the prison priors. It imposed several fines and fees and gave Steed 315 days of custody credit consisting of 211 days of actual time and 104 days of conduct credit under Penal Code section 4019.
DISCUSSION
A. The Appeal
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error, listing as possible, but not arguable issues, whether: (1) the trial court erred in denying his request to relieve defense counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view a video animation of Steed's route; (3) substantial evidence supported the conviction; and (4) Steed was entitled to additional custody credits. We granted Steed permission to file a brief on his own behalf and he subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we discuss in the next section.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Steed on this appeal.
B. The Habeas Petition
"When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court must first determine whether the petition states a prima facie case for relief - that is, whether it states facts that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief - and also whether the stated claims are for any reason procedurally barred." (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 737.) "To satisfy the initial burden of pleading adequate grounds for relief, an application for habeas corpus must be made by petition, and '[i]f the imprisonment is alleged to be illegal, the petition must also state in what the alleged illegality consists.' The petition should both (i) state fully and with particularity the facts on which relief is sought, as well as (ii) include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim, including pertinent portions of trial transcripts and affidavits or declarations. 'Conclusory allegations made without any explanation of the basis for the allegations do not warrant relief, let alone an evidentiary hearing.' " (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474, citations omitted.) "If no prima facie case for relief is stated, the court will summarily deny the petition." (Id. at p. 475)
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Steed challenges the true finding on one of the four prison priors that the trial court found true. He also claims that he received ineffective assistance from his appellate counsel.
We reject Steed's contention that the trial court improperly sentenced him for his prison priors. The evidence presented at trial revealed that Steed suffered four prison priors in case Nos. SCN217498, SCN200321, SCN187940 and SCE225940. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 667 ["the test of whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt' "].) Accordingly, the court did not err in sentencing Steed on the prison priors. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel warranting habeas corpus relief, Steed "must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688.) He must also "show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." (Id. at p. 694.) Steed has the burden to state with particularity the facts that establish both elements of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and to provide any readily available documentary evidence, such as trial transcripts and declarations, to support the claim. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474.) Steed has not sustained that burden here; thus, we reject his contention that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., IRION, J.