From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Zanebis

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Apr 9, 2008
No. B199384 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE ZANEBIS, Defendant and Appellant. B199384 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Eighth Division April 9, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA308028 Superior Court. Rand S. Rubin, Judge.

Tara K. Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FLIER, J.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, following a full advisement of rights, appellant George Zanebis pled guilty to the low term of two years for second degree robbery, doubled for one strike, plus one year for a hate crime enhancement under Penal Code section 422.75, subdivision (a). He was sentenced in accordance with the plea. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. He was notified that he could file his own brief and has not done so. He applied for a certificate of probable cause, which was denied.

At the preliminary hearing, Vickie M. and her 13-year-old daughter F. testified that appellant walked up to them on the street. Vickie M. and F. both wore outer garments called “hijabs.” Appellant said “he was with some division of the Marines.” He ordered Vickie M. and F. to give him all of their property. They refused. Then appellant said “he was with the KKK.” He threatened to kill Vickie M. if she did not give him all of her property. He picked up a glass bottle of beer from a bucket he was carrying, swung the bottle, and broke it on the ground. He threw part of the bottle at F., striking her at the waist. He called Vickie M. and F. names like “mother fuckers,” “bitch,” and “niggers.” He said something about their being Muslims. He then grabbed boots and two pairs of sunglasses from F’s bag and ran away.

On cross-examination, Vickie M. added that before appellant approached her, she saw him walking between cars in the street. He “caused a traffic jam on both sides of the street because he was cussing out all the drivers.”

According to the probation report, appellant appeared mentally ill to the police detective. Appellant had been paroled nine days before this offense. He never reported to his parole officer, but telephoned to say he intended to admit himself to a mental hospital.

The day the felony information was filed, the proceedings adjourned so that two doctors could evaluate appellant on the issue of his present competency to stand trial. The trial court “note[d] for the record defendant came in the courtroom today chewing on a piece of metal.”

On January 23, 2007, appellant was found competent to stand trial based on the reports of the doctors. They both believed he was presently competent.

On March 6, 2007, appellant pled guilty and was immediately sentenced to the five-year prison term with a total credit of 276 days.

On May 4, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of probable cause. He maintained he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and asked that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), because he pled guilty rather than NGI on the advice of his counsel despite his long history of mental illness. The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause stated: “On March, 06, 2007 I entered a plea of guilty. My attorney and I discussed a plea of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity. (NGI) He agreed for me to enter the plea. However when I was about to enter my plea of NGI he advised me not to. I feel I had ineffective assistance of counsel. In re Kubler (1975) 53 CA3d 799, 805, 126 CR 25. Subsequently I never entered the NGI plea due to the Advice of my Attorney. I was eva[lu]ated by a private psychiatrist and a State psychiatrist for a[n] incomp[e]tent to Stand trial plea. (IST) Both psychiatrists found me comp[e]tent to stand trial. However my mental illness goes back to my childhood and I have been taking Anti-psychotic medication for the last 13 years. I was not on my prescribed medication at the time th[e] crime was commit[t]ed and I could not determine the difference between Right and wrong. I am Requesting to withdraw my guilty plea and enter a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.”

In People v. Clemons (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1243, we recently reversed a judgment of conviction because the trial court did not permit the defendant to plead NGI when there was evidence to support that choice, even though his counsel disagreed with that choice. Clemons is different because the defendant there went to trial while appellant pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea that reduced his sentence exposure. The guilty plea and lack of a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of this appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea [that] do not affect the plea’s validity” and/or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4); see Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 769.)

Count 1 of the information charged second degree robbery with enhancements for a hate crime and for personal use of broken glass as a deadly weapon. Count 2 alleged assault with a deadly weapon and a hate crime enhancement. The information further alleged three prior strike convictions, three prior felony convictions for the purpose of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and four prior felony convictions for the purpose of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The prosecutor stated at the plea proceedings that appellant faced “at least 25 years to life” if all the allegations were proven. Instead, appellant received five years in prison.

From our review of the record, we are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: COOPER, P. J. EGERTON, J.

Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Zanebis

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Apr 9, 2008
No. B199384 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Zanebis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE ZANEBIS, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Apr 9, 2008

Citations

No. B199384 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2008)