People v. Codinha

Filed 11/24/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D077651 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD276107) JOSEPH CODINHA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Enhancement stricken and judgment affirmed. Garrick Byers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this appeal, Joseph Codinha (Appellant) raises a number of issues as a result of rulings in four separate proceedings in the trial court: (1) the denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (Pen. Code, § 1018; subsequent undesignated statutory references are to this code); (2) the denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia (§ 1538.5); (3) the determination, based on Appellant’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess); see §§ 832.5, 832.7, 832.8; Evid. Code, § 1043 et seq.), that the San Diego Police Department had no records responsive to Appellant’s discovery request; and (4) the sentence, which included a stay of a one-year enhancement on one of the counts (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). With regard to Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the basis of the various arguments he raises on appeal is the contention that, at the time of the plea, his trial attorney failed to advise him regarding whether a possible consequence of his plea included an indeterminate commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) at the end of any prison term. As we explain, Appellant’s presentation does not meet the standard for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland): Appellant did not establish either that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance. (See id. at pp. 687- 688, 691-692.) Counsel was not obligated to advise Appellant that an SVP commitment was a possible consequence of his plea; and Appellant did not present evidence that, if he had known about the potential for an SVP commitment, he would not have pled guilty. With regard to the motion to suppress evidence, we will not reach the merits of Appellant’s appellate arguments. As we explain, as part of his guilty plea, Appellant expressly gave up his right to appeal the denial of his section 1538.5 motion, and the trial court’s certificate of probable cause as to the section 1538.5 motion did not affect his waiver. 2 With regard to the Pitchess motion, we have examined the sealed records from the trial court’s in camera review. As we explain, in conducting its review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Finally, as Appellant and the Attorney General agree, in the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence on count 3, the …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals