P .v. Brown CA1/4

Filed 6/5/14 P .v. Brown CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A138044, A138991 v. PAUL WILLIAM BROWN, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. CR11-16652) Defendant and Defendant. __________________________________ In re PAUL WILLIAM BROWN, On Habeas Corpus

Defendant Paul William Brown pleaded no contest to one count of robbery. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years formal probation. While on probation, defendant was arrested for reckless driving, prompting the filing of a probation revocation petition. Defendant admitted the violation and the trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant to an aggravated state term of five years in prison. In his appeal and his concomitantly filed petition for writ of habeas corpus,1 defendant contends the trial court violated his right to due process by failing to initiate proceedings to determine his competency at the time it accepted defendant’s no contest plea.

1 We previously denied defendant’s request to consolidate his habeas petition pending further consideration of the appeal. We now grant consolidation of the appeal and petition.

1

We reject defendant’s attempt to challenge the validity of his plea, finding it barred by the absence of a certificate of probable cause. Similarly, we find his petition for writ of habeas corpus procedurally barred. Therefore, we dismiss his claims. I. BACKGROUND A. Underlying Plea and Probation According to the probation report, on March 7, 2011, Fort Bragg police officers responded to a reported altercation that possibly involved a carjacking attempt. Defendant was identified and apprehended walking down the sidewalk near to the location of the incident. The victim said she had just parked her car when defendant walked by and told her to be careful about an on-coming vehicle. She reported that the next thing she knew defendant had grabbed her from behind and was struggling to get her car keys out of her hand. A bystander helped pull defendant away from the victim. He thought defendant was struggling to get the victim’s purse. Defendant fell to the ground but got up and walked off. Defendant told the police he was high on cocaine and alcohol and he angrily grabbed her car keys, believing she had made a derogatory comment about him. On March 21, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery in exchange for dismissal of the attempted carjacking charge and a driving while intoxicated charge in an unrelated case. At that hearing, the trial court questioned defendant extensively regarding the rights defendant was sacrificing by entering a no contest plea. Specifically, the trial court asked defendant whether he understood and knowingly waived his rights to: (1) “a speedy public trial either before a judge or a jury”; (2) “confront and cross-examine any witnesses testifying against you”; (3) “present evidence on your own behalf”; and (4) “remain silent and not to incriminate yourself.” Defendant responded that he did. The trial court also informed defendant of his right to a preliminary examination, at which “the prosecution has the burden to show that there’s reasonable cause to believe that a felony was committed and that you are guilty of that offense.” Defendant stated that he understood this right and waived it. Defendant also stated that he was entering the plea “freely and voluntarily” and that no one had