People v. Madany CA2/3

Filed 8/23/23 P. v. Madany CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B324861
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA474657
v.
YAZEED MADANY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Affirmed.
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On April 19, 2022, defendant Yazeed Madany entered
negotiated no contest pleas to one count of assault with a deadly
weapon (Pen. Code1, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 7), one count of
having a concealed firearm on the person—not registered (§
25400, subd. (a)(2); count 3), and making criminal threats (§ 422,
subd. (a); count 6). Defendant also admitted inflicting great
bodily injury to the victim identified in count 7 (§ 12022.7, subd.
(a)). The parties stipulated to a six-year prison term.
On August 29, 2022, after denying defendant’s motion to
withdraw his no contest pleas, the trial court sentenced
defendant in accordance with the plea agreement and dismissed
the remaining counts and allegations. Defendant obtained a
certificate of probable cause and appeals from the order denying
his motion.
Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief asking that
we conduct an independent review of the record for arguable
issues as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel also informed defendant of his right to file a
supplemental brief on his own behalf, but defendant did not do
so. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
BACKGROUND
Before entering his pleas on April 19, 2022, defendant
asserted he understood the charges against him and his
maximum sentence. He also asserted he had been given enough
time to talk to his attorney about the facts of the case and his
rights and defenses. Defendant was advised of his right to a jury
trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to remain silent,
and to present a defense. Defendant waived these rights.
Defendant was further advised of the penal consequences of his
pleas, and he stated he understood those consequences. Finally,
defendant agreed he was freely and voluntarily entering no
contest pleas because it was in his best interest. After finding the
pleas and waivers were knowingly, freely, and voluntarily made,
defendant understood the nature of the charges and possible
consequences of his pleas, and that there was a factual basis for
the pleas, the court accepted the pleas.
Several months after he entered his pleas, represented by
new counsel, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas,
claiming he was pressured by his prior counsel—Christopher
Darden—to accept the prosecution’s offer and only had 15
minutes to consider it. In support of his motion, defendant’s new
counsel—Sergio Valdovinos—submitted a one-page declaration
stating that his review of defendant’s two preliminary hearing
transcripts and evidence that “[defendant] possesses demonstrate
significant contentions which support the defense position if
given the opportunity to go to trial.” Defendant did not submit his
own declaration.
At the August 29, 2022 hearing, Darden stated he
communicated the prosecution’s offer to defendant and allowed
him to talk to his sister about the offer. Darden also said he never
3
told defendant he would get any particular sentence if he rejected
the offer and went to trial. In opposition to defendant’s motion,
the prosecutor stated that defendant was facing more than 25
years in prison and the six-year offer that was accepted was “very
generous” and was reached only after “much back and forth and
so many representations made on the record.” In denying the
motion, the court explained that defendant did not show he was
“operating under a mistake, was somehow ignorant or that there
was any other factor overcoming the exercise of his free
judgment.”
DISCUSSION
Defendant was properly advised when he entered his no
contest pleas, the sentence was legally valid, and the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to
withdraw his pleas. (People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th
1501, 1506 [denial of motion to withdraw plea reviewed for abuse
of discretion]; People v. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409,
1415–1416 [defendant seeking to withdraw plea must establish
asserted basis for withdrawal of plea by clear and convincing
evidence].) After examining the entire record, we are satisfied
appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and
no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
4
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
EDMON, P. J.
ADAMS, J.
5