Opinion
B229871
01-04-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT CARLOS VILLALOBOS Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA356100)
DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
Robert Carlos Villalobos, charged with second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) on his no contest plea. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in state prison. A certificate of probable cause was applied for on the grounds that appellant wanted to withdraw his plea because (1) he was not given sufficient time to consider the plea offer and discuss it with his family, (2) unfair pressure was exerted by the trial court by telling him that he faced a life sentence just before he had to decide whether to accept the plea, and (3) his attorney misrepresented to him that he would only get "half-time," when in fact he got 80 percent time, and that once he got to prison, his attorney could get appellant's sentence reduced. The request for the certificate of probable cause was granted.
Appellant's convictions were based upon the following facts:
The facts are taken from the preliminary transcript.
--------
On June 5, 2000, near 3:00 a.m., Claudia Garcia (Garcia) heard a group of approximately four people arguing outside of the vacant apartment building next door to where she lived, on South New Hampshire Avenue, in the County of Los Angeles. She could not see the people in the group. Two of the people had a Latin accent. She heard one of them with the Latin accent saying, "Kill him, Kill him." She heard another man screaming and asking for help. Garcia telephoned 911.
After a few minutes, Garcia saw one of the men running. She had seen this person before and identified appellant in a photographic six-pack and at trial as the man she saw running.
When the police arrived they found a bloodied victim lying on the ground. An autopsy yielded some debris from under the victim's fingernail. Testing of that material established that it contained a DNA profile fitting appellant.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised. On September 12, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
On October 6, 2011, appellant filed a letter brief, asserting what we interpret to be a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in advising appellant with respect to accepting the plea agreement. Appellant argues that his attorney (1) "kept badgering" him to accept the plea agreement, (2) failed to advise appellant before appellant accepted the plea offer that DNA testing established his innocence, and, (3) failed to make a motion to withdraw the plea, which appellant requested on the same day he gave his plea.
Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his entry into a plea agreement raise factual questions outside the record on appeal. This claim must generally be raised by writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 172.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order under review is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.