People v. Zegarra CA2/5

Filed 3/18/14 P. v. Zegarra CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B249634

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA059128) v.

JUAN PABLO ZEGARRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant and appellant Juan Zegarra (defendant) to an eight-year, four-month prison term based on certain charges relating to driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting that this court independently review the entire record to determine if there are any issues, which if resolved in defendant’s favor, would require reversal or modification of the judgment. Accordingly, we notified defendant that he could brief any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider. In response, defendant submitted a supplemental brief contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on our review of defendant’s supplemental brief and the entire record, we hold that, to the extent defendant is basing his ineffective assistance claim on grounds that occurred prior to his plea, such claim is not appealable because the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. And, to the extent that defendant is basing his ineffective assistance claim on matters that occurred after his plea, we hold that, because the record sheds no light on why defendant’s trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, we cannot determine that claim on direct appeal. Therefore, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal and, for that reason, affirm the judgment of conviction.