P. v. Kemp
Filed 1-27-10 P. v. Kemp 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JOHNNIE KEMP, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B216764 (Super. Ct. No. KA081077) (Los Angeles County) |
Johnnie Kemp appeals the judgment of conviction following a plea of no contest to failure to register as a sex offender with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (b))[1]and admission that he has suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced appellant to 32 months state prison, awarded 356 days presentence credit, and ordered appellant to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (1202.45), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov Code 70373).
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
In a November 6, 2009 letter, appellant claimed that he was not receiving effective assistance of counsel. On November 20, 2009, we denied appellant's request for removal of counsel and granted appellant permission to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. No response was received from appellant.
On December 1, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant.
After appellant was sentenced to state prison, appellant filed a certificate of probable cause statement alleging that the trial court erred in not awarding presentence credits and that the trial court or prosecution violated the written plea agreement. These contentions are not supported by the record. (See e.g., People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) Nor does the record support appellant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 333.)
The preliminary hearing transcript and probation report state that appellant, a convicted sex offender, moved from his last known address at the Industry Inn Motel, failed to register his change of address, and removed his electronic monitoring ankle device. Appellant had prior convictions for rape, robbery, theft, prostitution, evading officers, and substance related offenses.
After appellant was found mentally competent to stand trial ( 1368), a second amended information was filed charging appellant with failure to register with a prior section 290 conviction ( 290, subd. (b)) and failure to file a change of address ( 290.013, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that appellant had four prior strike convictions ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had suffered five prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5.
Appellant was represented by a court appointed attorney, was advised that the maximum sentence was 25 years to life, and entered into a negotiated plea for 32 months state prison. Pursuant to the written plea agreement, appellant expressly, knowing and intelligently waived "back time" custody credits and the trial court dismissed the failure to file a change of address charge (count 2), struck three of the prior strike enhancements, and struck the prior prison term enhancements.
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; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Daniel J. Buckley, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
