P..v. Littlefield
Filed 8/25/08 P..v. Littlefield CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DYLAN MEREDITH LITTLEFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. | B203153 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA062820) |
APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elden Fox, Judge. Affirmed.
Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Dylan Meredith Littlefield appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea, prior to his preliminary hearing, to eight counts of robbery in the second degree, counts 1-3, 5-8, 11 (Pen. Code, 211) four counts of attempted second-degree robbery, counts 4, 9, 10, 12 (Pen. Code 664/211) and his admission that he served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years, consisting of the middle term of three years for count 1, one-third the middle term, or one year, consecutive, for counts 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, concurrent terms on the remaining counts, plus one year for one prior prison term enhancement.[2]
Appellant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On April 15, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On May 12, 2008, he submitted a supplemental brief in essence challenging his sentence and claiming that his defense counsel failed to investigate appellants background to learn he had a substance abuse problem and a history of mental health issues, which could have operated as factors in mitigation. Appellant also asserted that he has made great progress in his rehabilitation.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Appellants claim that in essence he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial is not demonstrated by the appellate record. (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436-437; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 700-701.) To the extent he is challenging his sentence, it is a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of [Penal Code] section 1237.5.[3] [Citation.] (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76-77.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
[1]Defense counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the pleas.
[2]The three additional prior prison term enhancements were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
[3]Penal Code section 1237.5 provides, No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met:
(a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.
(b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
