P. v. Carter
Filed 1/16/13 P.
v. Carter CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JEROME CARTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242667
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
TA123336)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Joel M. Wallenstein, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jerome
Carter, in pro. per.; Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Respondent.
——————————
>
The record contains no discussion of the underlying factual
circumstances of appellant Jerome Carter’s conviction. A felony complaint charged appellant with
convictions were also alleged as prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
Appellant
waived his preliminary hearing and
trial rights and pleaded no contest to the gun possession charge. He was sentenced to the mid-term of two years
in state prison. The court imposed the
requisite fines and fees and awarded presentence credits.
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal from the sentence and post-plea matters. The trial court denied appellant’s request
for a certificate of probable cause, and the appeal was dismissed as
inoperative. This appeal lies only to
the extent appellant is able to demonstrate sentencing or other post-plea
errors which do not impact the validity of his plea. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(a)(1), (b)(4)(B).)
We
appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, appellant’s
counsel filed an opening brief raising
no issues, and asking us to independently review the record. On October 29, 2012,
we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit, by brief
or letter, any contentions or argument he wished us to consider. At appellant’s request, we extended that
deadline to December
26, 2012.
On
December 31,
2012, appellant submitted an untimely
supplemental “Motion for to Expand the Record Under Rule 7 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases†(Motion).
It is difficult to ascertain the relief appellant seeks in that
Motion. He appears to assert that
individual justices of this court, among others, are witnesses to violations of
his due process rights, including the withholding by the attorney general or
the district attorney, of “court records . . . relevant to a determination of
the claims,†which resulted in his allegedly improper indictment, prosecution
and plea. Nothing in appellant’s Motion
relates to sentencing or other post-plea errors unrelated to the validity of
his plea.
We
have reviewed appellant’s supplemental Motion and have examined the entire
record. We are satisfied that
appellant’s counsel fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no
arguable issues exist. (
109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
JOHNSON,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD,
Acting P. J.
CHANEY,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise indicated.
