People v. Ellis CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 5/8/14 P. v. Ellis CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064978
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD246881)
TOMMY LAMONT ELLIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia
Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
Tommy Lamont Ellis entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty
to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The parties
agreed to dismiss the balance of the charges and stipulated to a term of three years, stayed
pending completion of drug court probation. Ellis was found not suitable for drug court.
Ellis requested and received a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970)
2 Cal. 3d 118, ostensibly to seek removal of trial counsel. At the hearing Ellis did not
request replacement of counsel but argued for a drug program. Ellis was sentenced to the
stipulated term of three years in prison.
Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal but did not request a certificate of probable
cause.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible but not
arguable issues. We offered Ellis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he
has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since this is an appeal from a guilty plea, it is sufficient to note that Ellis admitted
transporting methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she is
unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for
error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738, the brief identifies possible but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to replace appointed
counsel?
2. Whether the court should have appointed new counsel to argue a possible
motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel?
2
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d
436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable
appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Ellis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
3