People v. Brim CA1/2, A172535

Corey Brim pleaded guilty to second degree robbery and admitted a firearm enhancement following an incident involving his former friend, David Gonzales, in which Brim demanded and received money by force and use of a firearm.
The incident arose after Brim, owing his attorney $7,000, stayed at Gonzales’s residence, resulting in a confrontation and Brim forcibly obtaining $9,300 from Gonzales at gunpoint.
Brim was subsequently arrested the next day with co-defendant Dayten Hamilton while in possession of cash and a stolen safe.
Through a plea agreement, Brim pled guilty to robbery and admitted the firearm enhancement; the remaining charges and special allegations were dismissed, including dismissal of the co-defendant.
The trial court sentenced Brim to 13 years (mid-term of 3 years for robbery plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement) and imposed restitution and fines.
Brim appealed, challenging the validity of his plea and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; his arguments were raised in a supplemental pro per brief after appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Factual Basis for Plea	Guilty plea admits all elements; evidence established.	Insufficient evidence of robbery and improper firearm enhancement based on hearsay/coercion.	Review foreclosed by guilty plea; not cognizable on appeal.
Voluntariness of Plea	Plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.	Plea was coerced by fear of racial bias and a possible life sentence; not a genuine admission.	No record support for coercion; plea valid and voluntary.
Advisement of Rights and Consequences	Proper advisement by court and valid waiver form.	Was not advised of nature/consequences of firearm enhancement, esp. mandatory 10-year term.	Court adequately advised defendant; valid waiver found.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	No deficient performance by trial counsel established.	Counsel failed to object or explain enhancement and did not challenge lack of physical evidence.	No ineffective assistance on record; claims require habeas.
Clerical Error in Abstract of Judgment	--	Fine imposed under wrong statute noted in abstract.	Court must correct the abstract to reflect the right statute.

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedure for appellate counsel to seek independent review when no arguable issues)
In re Chavez, 30 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2003) (guilty plea admits all elements and restricts appellate review to jurisdiction/legal validity)
People v. Turner, 171 Cal.App.3d 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (guilty plea waives sufficiency/admissibility of evidence claims)
People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1996) (valid waiver form can substitute for personal admonishment at plea)
People v. Sharret, 191 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (oral pronouncement controls over discrepancies in abstract of judgment)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)