People v. Snowden CA1/4

Filed 8/26/24 P. v. Snowden CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168637 v. (San Mateo County DARNELL D. SNOWDEN, Super. Ct. No. SC049213A) Defendant and Appellant.

Petitioner Darnell D. Snowden appeals from the superior court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he asked the court to vacate a 2001 criminal judgment of conviction entered against him and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea because the judgment was procured by misrepresentation. The court denied the motion because Snowden failed to allege any facts regarding whether he diligently acted to discover this misrepresentation and file his petition, and Snowden appealed. Snowden’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) in which he finds no arguable appellate issues and suggests we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Snowden has filed a supplemental letter in which he raises two issues. We decline to conduct an independent review, address Snowden’s two issues, and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND A. Snowden’s 2023 Petition In April 2023, Snowden, representing himself, filed his petition. He alleged that on March 28, 2023, he discovered through due diligence that his 2001 guilty pleas for violating Health and Safety Code section 11351, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c),1 being armed with a firearm (the latter an admission of a sentence enhancement allegation), were procured through a misrepresentation. He further contended that in 2001, first, he either “was never advised of” his Boykin-Tahl rights2 or was not advised of them until after he entered his guilty plea, and that the record of his waiver of his rights was “ ‘woefully inadequate,’ ”; second, the court either failed to advise him or did not advise him until after he entered his guilty plea of the direct consequences of his plea and the nature of the charges against him; third, the court failed to find a factual basis for his plea; and, fourth, his attorney did not advise him that his admission of a gang enhancement allegation could be charged as a strike in future cases. Snowden attached to his 2023 petition a declaration by his attorney in the 2001 proceedings, which the attorney executed on April 2, 2009. The attorney stated that he “did not explain fully to Mr. Snowden that the [gang] enhancement would be charged as a strike in future cases. I told Mr. Snowden that it is highly unlikely that they would charge an allegation as a strike in the future. Clearly I was wrong. Mr. Snowden did not fully