Opinion
B230167
11-09-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BERNARD STRATFORD, Defendant and Appellant.
John Doyle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA068125
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathryne Ann Stoltz, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
John Doyle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Bernard Stratford sexually molested a friend's nine-year-old daughter, he was arrested and charged with two counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). He entered a plea of not guilty.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Stratford thereafter waived his right to trial, entered a plea of no contest, both orally and in writing, to one count of a forcible lewd act upon a child (count 1). At the time Stratford entered his plea, he was advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of his plea. Stratford stated he understood and waived his constitutional rights, acknowledged he understood the consequences of his plea and admission and accepted the terms of the negotiated agreement.
The trial court found the plea was freely and voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the plea. Defense counsel joined in the waivers of Stratford's constitutional rights and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. In accordance with the plea agreement, Stratford was sentenced to the upper term of eight years in state prison. The remaining charge was dismissed on the People's motion.
The trial court awarded Stratford 162 days of presentence custody credit (141 actual days and 21 days of conduct credits). The court ordered Stratford to pay a $40 security assessment, a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $200 restitution fine. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45.
Stratford filed a timely notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, Stratford checked the preprinted boxes indicating his appeal "is based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5" as well as challenging "the validity of the plea or admission." In the box for "other basis for this appeal," Stratford wrote, "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel," based on various grounds. In his request for certificate of probable cause, Stratford claimed his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to "raise the Alvarez law" (citing People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161) and to "file a motion to suppress statements" (citing section 1538.5). The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent Stratford on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On July 19, 2011, we advised Stratford he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Stratford's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea's validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Stratford never filed a motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) and the record provides no support for Stratford's assertion defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at any time during the proceedings. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].) In any event, because Stratford is, in essence, attacking the validity of his plea without a certificate of probable cause, his notice of appeal is inoperative to the extent it challenges the validity of that plea. (§ 1237.5; see People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 769-771; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.)
However, the November 17, 2010 minute order and abstract of judgment erroneously show that Stratford is to pay a $30 court security fee, contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The judgment is ordered modified to reflect the trial court's order that Stratford pay a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ZELON, J. We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
JACKSON, J.