P. v. Garrett
Filed 8/13/09 P. v. Garrett CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KHASHAN YNETTE GARRETT, Defendant and Appellant. | B209054 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA041287) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed.
Kathleen M. Redmond, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
On January 31, 2008, Khashan Ynette Garrett and her son presented a paycheck (whose printing indicated it had been issued by EDAC Power Incorporated) as a down payment on the purchase of a car from an auto business in Lancaster. A manager at the auto business reviewed the transaction and determined the check was no good, and an EDAC account supervisor subsequently told an investigating deputy that the check was counterfeit.
On March 26, 2008, the People filed an information charging Garrett with one count of commercial burglary and one count of forgery.[1]
On April 14, 2008, Garrett waived her constitutional trial rights, and pleaded nolo contendre to the forgery count, in exchange for which the People agreed to dismiss the burglary count. At the same time, Garrett admitted that she had violated her probation in a prior burglary case.
In accord with the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Garrett to serve 2 years (the mid-term) in state prison, and imposed the common restitution fines and fees. The court terminated the probation violation matter.
Garrett filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. On December 22, 2008, Garretts appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues. On December 23, 2008, we notified Garrett by letter that she could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, argument or contention which she wished us to consider. Following an intervening delay in which we issued an opinion, and then granted Garretts request to recall the remittitur, Garrett filed supplemental arguments on July 6, 2009.
We have independently reviewed the record, and are satisfied that Garretts appointed counsel has fulfilled her duty, and that no arguable issues exist regarding the validity of Garretts plea and sentence. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
Garretts supplemental brief contains an assertion that she took a deal signed under duress, and explains that she was under a lot of stress being away from [her] children already for so long, and that the pressure[] and stress was so great . . . [she] decided to take the deal . . . . We reject Garretts plea-based argument because, while duress is a recognized ground for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea (see, e.g., People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131), Garretts argument on appeal relies on matters that are outside the record submitted to our court for her current appeal. The record before us on her appeal shows that the trial court asked Garrett whether she was pleading freely and voluntarily because [she felt it was] in her best interest to do so, and shows that Garrett answered the trial court in the affirmative. If a different factual scenario exists, Garrett must establish those facts other than in her current appeal.
In another vein, Garrett appears to suggest that her plea is invalid because, in fact, she had no knowledge of the check being counterfeit. We reject this argument on appeal because the matters submitted by Garrett do not overcome the showing in the record that, at the time of Garretts plea, the trial court accepted a stipulation that there was a factual basis for the plea.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BIGELOW, J.
We concur:
FLIER, Acting P. J., BENDIX, J.*
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Garretts son was charged with the same counts. He is not a party to this appeal.
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
