Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. PA063588, Shari K. Silver, Judge.
William C. Hsu, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CROSKEY, Acting P.J.
Abdul Azim Khan appeals from the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
At approximately 5:35 p.m. on January 29, 2009, Los Angeles Police Officer Jeffrey Heller was on duty in the area surrounding Parthenia Street and Columbus Avenue. As he was walking north on Columbus, the officer heard Khan call out to him. Heller walked over to Khan and Khan asked Heller what he needed. Heller told Khan that he was looking for $20 worth of “rock.” Khan told Heller that he could “help [him] out, ” and the two men began walking up the street together. They crossed paths with a woman and Khan asked her if she was “working.” When she asked Khan what he needed, he told her that he was looking for $40 worth of rock. The woman left and, after Heller and Khan waited for her for approximately 10 minutes, they left the area. The two men then walked east, down an alley north of Parthenia Street.
“Rock” is street vernacular for rock cocaine.
Heller believed the term “working” meant that she was selling narcotics.
Heller and Khan walked to an apartment complex with a locked gate at the front. Two men were outside, toward the back of the complex. When they saw Khan and Heller, they walked up to the front gate and told Heller and Khan to go to a side gate. Just before they arrived at the side gate, Khan asked Heller for the $20. Heller gave the money to Khan and, when they arrived at the side gate, they met the two men who had been in the back of the building. Khan began to talk with the two men and he told them that he needed $60 worth of rock. Khan put in his mouth the first piece of rock cocaine handed to him by one of the men. The man then handed out the second and third rocks, one to Heller and one to Khan.
Khan walked North on Columbus, back to Parthenia. There he and Heller separated and Khan was followed by another officer. Los Angeles Police Officer Jaffe spoke to Heller in the parking lot, then followed Khan. Khan was standing next to a wall when Jaffe spoke to him. As the officer approached, he saw Khan drop a pipe used for smoking cocaine.
It was stipulated that on February 2, 2009, Stephanie Thomas, “a criminalist with the Los Angeles Police Department, who was qualified to testify as an expert with regard to the chemical analysis of narcotic substances[, ] received [an] evidence envelope... in a sealed condition, broke the seal [and] weighed the contents[.]” Item 1, a plastic Ziplock baggy containing an off-white solid weighed 0.11 grams and item 2, a yellow coin envelope containing an off-white solid, weighed 0.12 grams. Thomas analyzed the substances and found that item 1, tested with microcrystalline solubility tests, showed the presence of a usable amount of cocaine in the form of cocaine base. Tests performed on item 2 also indicated the presence of a usable amount of cocaine in the form of cocaine base.
2. Procedural history.
In an information filed February 20, 2009, it was charged in count 1 that, on January 29, 2009, Khan sold, transported, and offered to sell a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), a felony. Count 2 charged that, on or about January 29, 2009, Khan possessed a “smoking device” in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor.
On March 25, 2009, the trial court ordered the information amended by interlineation to add count 3, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Khan then waived his right to a court or jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination. Khan was advised of “[t]he nature of the charges against him, the element[s] of the offense[s] in the information and possible defenses to such charges; [¶] [t]he possible consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, including the maximum penalty and administrati[on] [of] sanctions and the possible legal effects and maximum penalties incident to subsequent convictions for the same or similar offenses; [and] [¶] [t]he effects of probation[.]” In addition, Khan was advised: “If you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised that a conviction of the offense for which you have been charged will have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States[.]” After being so advised, Khan pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance as alleged in count 3. The trial court found a factual basis for the plea and accepted it.
At the probation and sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Khan on formal probation for a period of three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days in county jail. Khan was also ordered to pay a $20 court security assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) and penalty assessments in the amount of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464), and $35 (Gov. Code, § 76000). Khan was given presentence custody credit for 86 days actually served and 42 days of good time/work time, or a total of 128 days.
At proceedings held on April 24, 2009, it was determined Khan had an “immigration hold.”
In a pleading filed on July 21, 2009, Khan moved to withdraw his plea. He alleged he “didn’t fully understand the plea bargain and want[ed] to withdraw his pleas.” However, the trial court noted that Khan had been given extensive advisements, including that if he was not a citizen of the United States entry of his plea could result in deportation. After determining that the plea had been informed and voluntary, the trial court denied the motion.
Khan filed a timely notice of appeal on September 24, 2009.
This court appointed counsel to represent Khan on appeal on December 17, 2009.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed May 12, 2010, the clerk of this court advised Khan to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. On June 9, 2010, Khan filed a document indicating that he had not understood the proceedings against him because he had not been provided with an interpreter. However, a review of the record reveals Khan understood the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings. At no time did Khan request the services of an interpreter. Only now, when he is faced with jail time and possible deportation, does he claim he did not understand what was happening in and outside the courtroom. In view of the record before us, the contention is without merit.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea is affirmed.
We concur: KITCHING, J. ALDRICH, J.