IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen)
April 22, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
RICHARD DEWAYNE BASSETT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CH027650)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P.J.
P. v. Bassett
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Richard Dewayne Bassett pleaded no contest to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; further statutory references are to this code) and admitted a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)), in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges and enhancements and an agreement that he would be sentenced to state prison for a term of six years. The People and the defense attorney stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was sentenced accordingly.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Defendant's appellate counsel applied to this court for permission to seek a certificate of probable cause in the trial court and to file an amended notice of appeal. The application was denied. Counsel then filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
Defendant sent a letter to this court, explaining that he "has no knowledge about what needs a certificate of probable cause and what [does not]," and that his trial attorney "never had any real communication" with him, did not answer his letters, and destroyed his case file. He argues that we wrongly denied his appellate counsel's application for permission to seek a certificate of probable cause in the trial court.
This court's denial of defendant's application for permission to seek a certificate of probable cause in the trial court is not cognizable as an appealable issue in this proceeding, as it challenges our ruling rather than the judgment in the trial court. Even if we were to construe defendant's argument as a motion to reconsider our ruling, he has provided no new ground that would warrant granting his request. Although a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time a plea is entered can be cognizable on appeal (People v. Robinson (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 363, 369), there must be an adequate record to support such claim. Here, the record on appeal does not disclose any factual support for the complaints raised by defendant about his trial counsel. Accordingly, even if defendant had obtained a certificate of probable cause, his claims would not be cognizable in this proceeding.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ , J. MURRAY , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.