People v. Ellis CA2/2

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Ellis CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, B325398
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA154121)
v.
TITUS ELLIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Titus Ellis was convicted pursuant to a negotiated plea of
no contest to robbery. Ellis appeals from a postjudgment order
denying his motion to withdraw the plea. No arguable issues
have been identified following review of the record by Ellis’s
appointed appellate counsel or our independent review. We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ellis was charged in a felony complaint filed April 6, 2021,
with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and second degree
robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). A 2018 robbery conviction was
alleged as a prior serious felony conviction and a prior strike
conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds. (b)-(j),
1170.12).
At his arraignment on January 12, 2022, Ellis initially
rejected the People’s offer of a five-year sentence in return for a
guilty plea on the robbery charge. The court and trial counsel
advised Ellis he was possibly facing a maximum sentence of 27
years, including his probation violation. The court agreed to
delay the hearing until after the lunch recess so Ellis could confer
with trial counsel.
The proceedings resumed and after further clarification
from the court, Ellis agreed to accept the People’s offer. Ellis was
advised of and waived his constitutional rights, stated he
understood the meaning of a no contest plea and its consequences
in this case, and entered a plea of no contest to robbery. In
accordance with the plea agreement, Ellis was sentenced to the
upper state prison term of five years and the carjacking charge
and enhancement allegations were dismissed.
On May 25, 2022, Ellis moved to withdraw his plea. After
the hearing on the motion was continued, trial counsel declared a
conflict of interest. The court appointed other trial counsel to
represent Ellis on the motion. That attorney filed a new motion
to withdraw Ellis’s plea. The court heard and denied the motion
on October 21, 2022. Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal from the
postjudgment order.
2
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Ellis in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
Appointed counsel advised Ellis on March 2, 2023, that he could
personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted this court
to consider. We have received no response.
We have examined the record and are satisfied Ellis’s
appellate counsel has complied with counsel’s responsibilities and
there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 277–284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118–119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441–442.)
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
3