People v. El-Mohammed CA3

Filed 8/30/16 P. v. El-Mohammed CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C081208

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F02028)

v.

ANSAR EL-MOHAMMED,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We briefly recount the facts and proceedings in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124. On March 25, 2015, defendant Ansar El-Mohammed (aka Scotty Crawford) was found in possession of a loaded .40-caliber handgun discovered underneath the center console of his car. He had previously been convicted of armed robbery in 1994. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a strike prior

1

(Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 32 months (low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior).1 After denying defendant’s request to strike the strike prior (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals. He did not seek a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). 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. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, raising three issues which we discuss in seriatim. “(1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel to be advised to admit a strike prior that has only been ‘pled’ (alleged) but not ‘proved’? If counsel and defendant [are] uncertain of qualifying prior?” Defendant admitted the strike prior which had been alleged, proving the same. We are unclear of defendant’s meaning that he and defense counsel were “uncertain of [the] qualifying prior.” The record reflects that the strike prior alleged was a 1994 robbery which was confirmed prior to his admission. Defendant has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687- 694 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-698]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.)