People v. Prothero CA3

Filed 1/19/16 P. v. Prothero CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079708

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. HCCR150000013) v.

RICHARD PROTHERO, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant Richard Prothero, Jr., appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition filed on April 23, 2015, defendant, in propria persona, claimed all of the following: he pled guilty to second degree murder, possession of body armor, and possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced on April 20, 2010; he entered his plea while under the influence of “heavy psychotropic medications and duress from his attorney”; he has documented juvenile and adult incarceration records showing he has a

1

mental illness, while in county jail he had received four psychotropic medications, and that he is “currently under a court order to be injected with psychotropic medication to control his diagnosed mental illness”; his attorney never initiated a sanity or competency evaluation; he recently received discovery that the “government had taken photos of alleged confession on his cell wall (while he was under the influence of several prescribed psychotropic medications)”; his attorney “had told him that the wall confession would get him and that he had better taken [sic] this only offer, which was a life sentence of 15 years to life”; the evidence against him, absent the wall confession, was less than credible (“finger pointing from a co-defendant”); witnesses had told the police that codefendant had stated he (codefendant) did not mean to shoot; and the discovery showed he had a valid defense. Defendant sought a writ of error coram nobis on the grounds that at the time of his plea, he was not sane, his waiver of his constitutional rights was not valid, and his attorney rendered ineffective assistance. By written order, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court found that defendant had failed: to articulate grounds for relief, to present any evidence in support of his claims, to raise his claims in a timely fashion, and to explain his five-year delay in raising his claims. Defendant, in propria persona, filed a notice of appeal. A trial court’s denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order; we review the ruling for an abuse of discretion. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-507; People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 950-951; People v. Goodspeed (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 146, 156; People v. Painter (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 93, 99; People v. Devora (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 457, 463.) We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,