People v. Haney CA2/5

Filed 8/1/14 P. v. Haney CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B251838

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA073104) v.

JOHNNY HANEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Jesic, Judge. Dismissed. Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Johnny Haney, pled no contest to methamphetamine possession. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) He had previously been convicted of a serious felony. He was sentenced to 8 years in state prison. Defendant purports to appeal from the judgment. We dismiss the appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested that this court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.) On May 30, 2014, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. No response has been received. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel have fully complied with their responsibilities. Defendant purported to appeal on certificate and noncertificate issues. On October 2, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal stating, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)” (See People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 298- 299; People v Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 677.) Defendant’s notice of appeal also stated, “This appeal challenges the validity of the plea or admission.” Defendant’s request for a probable cause certificate (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied. Defendant’s probable cause certificate request stated: “. . . I . . . feel that I was misrepresented by my then attorney Mrs. Jennifer Hawkins with the public defender[’]s office. [¶] I feel I could have received a lesser sentence in this case if my then attorney would have reviewed my case more thoroughly and made certain issues known to the judge and D.A.” On October 28, 2013, this court filed an order stating: “The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Unless it is shown that the appeal . . . is from an appealable order, the appeal will be dismissed.” Our Supreme Court has explained: “[W]hen a defendant pleads guilty or no contest and is convicted without a trial, only limited issues are cognizable on appeal. A