P. .v Cisneros CA3

Filed 8/13/14 P. .v Cisneros CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072533

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F01127)

v.

RICHARD LEE CISNEROS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Richard Lee Cisneros and his codefendant, Christopher Colard, guilty of first degree burglary. Defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel did not determine a second prior conviction allegation was invalid at the time it was alleged. He also contends trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not provide defendant with the opportunity to view an in- car camera recording prior to the prosecutor’s withdrawal of a plea offer. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND A recitation of the details surrounding defendant’s underlying offense is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. It is sufficient to state that on February 10, 2012, the residential alarm was activated at the home of Helen Cummins. A neighbor saw defendant and Colard standing at Cummins’s gate and fence, saw one of them jump over the fence, and then saw them both running down the street. Shortly thereafter, officers apprehended both men. While defendant and Colard were in the patrol car following their arrest, an audio/video recording of their conversation was made. During that conversation, defendant said, “Just say I went with you and then you split up to buy drugs and then you decided to rob her. Just do it bro.” Colard replied: “No. Hell, no. Fuck you, (unintelligible). Fuck you. Don’t try to do that.” Defendant responded: “Oh, my -- hey. OK, I wasn’t with you. Just say I wasn’t with you.” After a short discussion of what their story would be, defendant said, “Hey. Listen. Just say I didn’t have nothin’ to do with it bro.” Colard interjected that he intended to plead not guilty because he had to make it to his father’s funeral. Defendant continued, “Promise me (unintelligible) you say he didn’t have nothin’ to do with it. So I at least have a chance with my boy. You know, I’ll hold you down forever, bro. If you need it.” Both defendant and Colard were charged with first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)1 The information also alleged defendant had been convicted of a prior serious felony (juvenile adjudication for robbery, § 211) within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and the “Three Strikes” law. Early in the process, defendant was provided the opportunity to resolve the case for a four-year prison term. Defendant declined the offer. Subsequently, and up through