People v. Crumwell CA2/5

Filed 2/25/13 P. v. Crumwell CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B243279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA395009) v.

JOHN CRAFT CRUMWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald H. Rose, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

On June 20, 2012, defendant and appellant John Craft Crumwell entered a no contest plea to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and admitted suffering a prior conviction under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to a case settlement agreement between defendant and the prosecution, the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence, consisting of the midterm of four years, doubled under the three strikes law. Defendant filed a notice of appeal without obtaining a certificate of probable cause. His notice of appeal states the appeal is “exclusively based on grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea‟s validity.” This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On January 11, 2013, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues. Counsel requested this court to independently review the appellate record for arguable contentions under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by letter of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief with this court on February 11, 2013, along with a motion to augment the record with unreported, off the record proceedings, which occurred on June 5, and June 20, 2012. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal in his supplemental brief: (1) the burden was on the prosecution to produce admissible evidence of his prior convictions under the three strikes law, even though defendant admitted suffering one of the convictions as part of his plea agreement; (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant informed counsel he had not been convicted of the alleged prior offenses; (3) the trial court‟s participation in the plea discussions led defendant to believe he had to plead or the court would sentence him to 25 years to life in prison; (4) denial of defendant‟s motion to discharge defense counsel on May 30, 2012, deprived defendant of the right to counsel; (5) defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to make any challenge to the prior convictions; (6) defense counsel should have made a motion to dismiss under section 995; and (7) defendant was not properly advised of the consequences of his plea in 1992, and had he