P. v. Sullivan
Filed 1/27/14 P. v. Sullivan
CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
COREY
SULLIVAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B249743
(Los
Angeles County Super. Ct.
No. BA374465)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge.
Affirmed.
Marta
I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
Defendant and
appellant Corey Sullivan entered into a case settlement agreement with the
prosecution in which he (1) plead no
contest to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211);
conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a conviction under the three strikes law (§§
1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)); (3) admitted that one of the robberies was
committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd.
(b)(1)(C)); and (4) admitted that a
principal in one of the robberies was armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon
(§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, nine additional felony counts were dismissed and defendant
was sentenced to 28 years in state prison.
Defendant
filed a notice of appeal. The
is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the appeal, and the appeal
challenges the validity of the plea or admission. Defendant’s request for a certificate of
probable cause was denied by the trial court.
This
court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On December 11, 2013, appointed counsel filed
a brief raising no issues, asking this court to independently review the record
for arguable appellate contentions under People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant
was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days.
Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file his supplemental
brief was granted.
On
January 14, 2014, defendant filed a supplemental brief raising multiple issues,
including improper denial of his motion for severance, insufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction as an aider and abettor, erroneous failure
to dismiss the gang enhancement allegation, ineffective assistance of
defendant regarding potentially meritorious grounds for appeal and urging
defendant to accept the case settlement rather than risk 94 years in prison if
convicted at trial, and his guilty plea was involuntary.
The
legal effect of a no contest plea to a
felony is the same as a plea of guilty.
(§ 1016, subd. 3; People v.
Wallace (2004) 33 Cal.4th 738, 749.) Defendant’s contention that the trial court
erred in denying his motion to sever is not reviewable on appeal following a
guilty plea. (People v. Haven (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 983, 985-986.) All of defendant’s contentions regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence are also not cognizable on appeal. A guilty plea concedes the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and waives any
evidence on appeal. (
363, 369.)
Defendant’s
claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not supported by the record
on appeal. First, the appellate record
does not fully set forth the interaction between counsel and defendant, nor
does it contain an explanation for trial counsel’s actions. Under these circumstances, relief cannot be
granted on direct appeal. (
1189; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25
Cal.4th 926, 1031.) On the face of the
reasonably recommended that defendant enter into the case settlement agreement,
which produced a sentence of less than one-third of defendant’s maximum
exposure. Defendant makes no showing of
what potentially meritorious appellate issues counsel failed to disclose, or
how he was prejudiced from the purported nondisclosure. Nothing in the appellate record suggests that
trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness or that defendant suffered prejudice sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome. (
668, 694.)
Defendant’s
contention that his plea was involuntary is not supported by the record. The trial court did not coerce defendant into
entering a plea and, in fact, several times offered to send the case to
Department 100 for trial assignment if defendant did not want to settle the
case. While defendant may have been
unhappy with a settlement resulting in a 28-year state prison sentence, that
result was fairly attributable to defendant’s criminality and not coercion on
the part of the trial court.
We
have examined the entirety of the appellate record and find no arguable
appellate contentions. The judgment is
affirmed. (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259.)
KRIEGLER,
J.
We concur:
MOSK,
Acting P. J.
MINK,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
