People v. Echeverria CA2/3

Filed 2/22/16 P. v. Echeverria CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B264989

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA047435) v.

ANDREW ECHEVERRIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Brandlin, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant and appellant Andrew Echeverria appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for dismissal pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.41. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 15, 1993, Echeverria was convicted of robbery, a felony, after he pleaded guilty. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 He was sentenced to a prison term.2 On April 9, 2015, Echeverria, acting in propria persona, filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to section 1203.41 in the trial court. On May 15, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. Counsel was appointed for Echeverria. Echeverria was not present. Defense counsel stated that Echeverria had “pled to a 211” and “it appears from the minute order, he went to prison.” The trial court denied the petition for dismissal, finding Echeverria was ineligible for relief because of the state prison commitment. Echeverria filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 19, 2015, he requested a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of the 1993 plea, which was denied as untimely and lacking any factual and legal basis. Appended to the notice of appeal or to the request for a certificate of probable cause was Echeverria’s typed statement, which challenged the validity of the plea based on, inter alia, “contradictions of the victim[’]s statements at the Pre-trial hearing” and the “conflicting police report.”