People v. Azadrad CA2/2

Filed 8/12/15 People v. Azadrad CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B259163

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA074251) v.

MOHAMMAD AZADRAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:* Defendant and appellant Mohammad Azadrad (defendant) appeals the denial of his postjudgment motion to withdraw his plea. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. After we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered, defendant submitted a letter and a declaration which we have reviewed along with the entire record. Finding no abuse of discretion or other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment. An amended information filed in July 2013 charged defendant with the following three felonies: count 1, petty theft with prior theft convictions, in violation of Penal Code section 666, subdivision (b); count 2, possession of methamphetamine in violation of

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a); and count 3, robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211. The information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction, within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law, Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivision (b), and 667, subdivisions (b)-(j), and had served a prior prison term as defined in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On October 7, 2013, defendant appeared for a probation violation hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court case Nos. LA071619 and LA069643, and for trial in the current case. At the start of the probation hearing, defendant complained that his Farsi interpreter did not translate properly in a previous proceeding and did not tell the court about his heart condition or high blood pressure. Defendant asked to proceed without an interpreter, telling the court he understood English “a little bit” and would ask the court for an explanation if he did not understand something. The trial court found the interpreter was court-appointed and certified in Farsi, and denied the request. After the court found defendant in violation of probation, defendant asked to have appointed counsel relieved and a continuance to give him time to retain private counsel. Defendant explained that his wife had spoken to an attorney, but the attorney would not appear without payment. The trial court determined that it was defendant’s intent to delay sentencing, so denied the request and sentenced defendant to the previously suspended terms.1 The prosecution then offered defendant a sentence of four years on the open case if defendant would plead to second degree robbery and admit the prior strike. The trial court confirmed that the term would run concurrently with the terms imposed under case Nos. LA069643 and LA071619, and defendant would receive custody credit of 149 days. Defendant asked the court for a two-week continuance to retain private counsel. The trial court denied the request as untimely, noting that defendant had not named an attorney willing to represent him and had previously claimed he did not have the funds to hire private counsel.