P. v. Fernandez CA4/3

Filed 6/17/13 P. v. Fernandez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047770

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10CF2953)

JOSE BARAJAS FERNANDEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James Edward Rogan, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

We appointed counsel to represent Jose Barajas Fernandez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appeal. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Defendant subsequently filed a brief with this court. Defendant’s brief refers to many matters outside the record. Defendant also contends his lawyer failed to properly pursue a motion to suppress and, although he does not use this language, in effect, accuses both his trial and appellate attorneys of inadequate representation. Where an acceptable explanation may exist or the record does not reflect the reason for counsel’s behavior, an inadequate representation claim cannot be considered on appeal. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) To pursue these issues, defendant must do so by way of a petition for habeas corpus. (Id. at 265.) We have independently reviewed the trial record and found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the judgment.