People v. Selim CA2/7 ( 2024 )

Filed 6/3/24 P. v. Selim CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B332209
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA130802)
v.
PETER A. SELIM,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed.
Lori A. Nakaoka, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
INTRODUCTION
Peter A. Selim appeals from his convictions pursuant to a
negotiated plea for possession of a dirk or dagger and dissuading
a witness. We appointed counsel to represent Selim in this
appeal. Selim’s appointed counsel reviewed the record and did
not identify any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) Nor, after reviewing the record independently,
have we. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In an amended information, the People charged Selim with
three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1))1 involving a single victim, one count of possession of
a dirk or dagger (§ 21310), and one count of dissuading a witness
(§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The People provided notice that the
offenses were serious felonies within the meaning of Penal Code
section 1192.7, subdivision (c), and violent felonies within the
meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c). The People alleged as
to all three counts that Selim had two prior felony convictions
within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4); Selim was
armed with and used a weapon at the time of the commission of
the offenses within the meaning of California Rules of Court,
rule 4.421(a)(2); and Selim committed the offenses while “he was
on probation, mandatory supervision, post release community
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
2
supervision, and parole, within the meaning of California Rules
of Court, rule 4.421(b)(4).”
Selim petitioned for mental health diversion prior to trial
pursuant to section 1001.36. After a hearing, on June 21, 2023
the trial court denied his petition, finding he posed an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the
community. (Id., subd. (c)(4).)
On July 6, 2023, following advisement and waiver of his
constitutional rights, Selim, represented by counsel, pleaded no
contest to possession of a dirk or dagger and to dissuading a
witness.2 The trial court accepted Selim’s plea, finding Selim had
freely and voluntarily entered into the plea and knowingly and
intelligently waived his statutory and constitutional rights.
On July 14, 2024 the trial court sentenced Selim to the
agreed-upon sentence of two years in state prison with credit for
time served. The court sentenced Salim on count 4 for possession
of a dirk or dagger to the low term of 16 months and on count 5
for dissuading a witness to eight months (one-third the middle
term of two years). The court dismissed the remaining counts
and allegations pursuant to the plea agreement.
Selim filed a timely notice of appeal. On July 24, 2023 the
court denied Selim’s request for a certificate of probable cause to
appeal the denial of his petition for mental health diversion.3
2 An Arabic interpreter assisted Selim during the court
hearings, including at the plea and sentencing hearings.
3 The appellate record does not contain the order denying
Selim’s request for a certificate of probable cause. Selim states in
his Wende brief that the court denied his request on July 24,
2023.
3
(§ 1237.5.) On November 6, 2023, this court issued an order
limiting the issues on appeal to those that do not require a
certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.304(b)(2) & (b)(3).)
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record, counsel for Selim filed an
opening brief raising no issues. On April 8, 2024 counsel
informed Selim that she would be filing a Wende brief, and sent
Selim the record on appeal and a copy of the brief. Counsel also
informed Selim that he could file a supplemental brief within 30
days. We have not received a response.
A defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or
guilty without a certificate of probable cause can only challenge
the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or assert grounds
arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s
validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have examined
the record and are satisfied that appellate counsel for Selim has
complied with her responsibilities and that there are no arguable
issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284;
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
FEUER, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J.
SEGAL, J.
5