P. v. Cuevas
Filed 10/28/08 P. v. Cuevas CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAUL GARCIA CUEVAS, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B197350 (Super. Ct. No. LA040073) (Los Angeles County) |
Saul Garcia Cuevas appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw his no contest plea to twenty-seven counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery, one count of grand theft, and two counts of kidnapping. (Pen. Code, 211, 664/211, 487, subd. (c), & 207.)[1] We affirm.
Between December 13, 2001 and March 3, 2002, appellant entered numerous businesses and, using a gun, demanded money and/or personal property from the employees. The businesses included an ice cream store, a shoe store, and a beauty shop. Appellant also kidnapped two of the beauty shop employees. [2]
Appellant reached a plea agreement with the prosecution and the court sentenced him. He appealed without obtaining a certificate of probable cause and challenged his conviction and sentence of 35 years 8 months in prison. This court affirmed appellant's conviction; concluded that no certificate of probable cause was required to challenge the sentence; and concluded that the aggregate sentenced imposed by the court violated section 654. The supreme court granted review, affirmed appellants conviction, and concluded that a certificate of probable cause was required to challenge the sentence. (See People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374.)
On December 4, 2006, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to section 1018, or alternatively a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The court denied the motion and petition on January 31, 2007.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On July 26, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We subsequently granted appellant extensions for submitting a brief. Appellant submitted a written response. He claims that his plea resulted from mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fraud, and other factors that rendered his plea involuntary; that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; and that the court violated his right to due process by denying his motion and petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.[3]
We have examined the entire record and appellant's supplemental response. The trial court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 201 [no requirement that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on every motion to withdraw a plea].) In addition, appellant failed to file a petition for habeas corpus alleging facts and submitting evidence to support his request for an evidentiary hearing concerning the competency of counsel. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.) We are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
John Fisher, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Cheryl Barnes Johnson, Attorney, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
[2]The facts are from the preliminary hearing transcript.
[3]We held this matter pending finality of the Supreme Courts decision in People v. Cuevas, supra, 44 Cal.4th 374.
