People v. Dunn CA2/5

Filed 9/15/16 P. v. Dunn CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B271245

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA067506) v.

DYLAN L. DUNN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed. Lori A. Quick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Defendant and appellant Dylan L. Dunn entered into a case settlement agreement with the prosecution. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to custodial possession of a weapon (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a))1 and admitted one of seven alleged prior convictions falling under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) and 1170.12). In return for defendant’s plea and admission, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon term of six years in state prison. The prosecutor moved to dismiss the six remaining prior conviction allegations under the three strikes law and seven prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) from the trial court. This court appointed counsel for defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but requesting this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing he received inadequate assistant of trial counsel in connection with the case settlement. We have completed our independent review of the record. The claims in defendant’s supplemental brief are without merit and in material aspects misstate the record on appeal. For example, defendant argues that he was convinced by counsel to waive preliminary hearing with the understanding that the prosecution would hold open its pre-preliminary hearing offer of four years in state prison. This is incorrect. The preliminary hearing magistrate stated, “We should put on the record the agreement was the defendant was going to waive preliminary hearing with the understanding the People were going to keep their six-year offer open,” a fact confirmed by the prosecutor. The record expressly refutes defendant’s claim of a four-year offer. Defendant also argues defense counsel mislead him into believing she would speak with the judge in the trial court about a four year sentence, but she failed to do so. This also misrepresents the