People v. Clody CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 2014 No. G048884Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues on appeal and declining to construe the defendant's supplemental brief as a petition for habeas corpus regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claims that rely on matters outside the record.

Issues

Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Whether the court should construe the defendant's supplemental brief as a petition for habeas corpus.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We have examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues are present and we have found none.”

“in cases such as this where matters outside the record must be considered in evaluating those claims, a habeas corpus petition should be filed with an appeal.”

Filed 2/24/14 P. v. Clody CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048884

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF0408)

JEFFREY JOSEPH CLODY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Jeffrey Joseph Clody pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted various prior conviction sentence enhancement allegations, all in a plea to the court while represented by appointed counsel. The trial court then exercised its discretion and struck a prior “serious felony” conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1) and 1192.7, subd. (c)(1)) for sentencing purposes only. As agreed in the guilty plea form, the trial court sentenced Clody to a total prison term of five years, but then suspended execution of that sentence and granted Clody probation on certain terms and conditions, including 348 days in the county jail with credit for time served, and a requirement that he complete the Delancey Street residential drug treatment program. About a week later while acting in propria persona, Clody filed a notice of appeal and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. Clody next requested and obtained a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) from the trial court. However, the trial court declined to hear Clody’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that the notice of appeal had deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter.1

People v. Clody CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

JEFFREY JOSEPH CLODY, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THOMPSON, J.

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

FYBEL, J.

AI Brief