Filed 8/29/16 P. v. Wooten 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REGINALD JOHN WOOTEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B266670

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA136317)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John 

Joseph Cheroske, Judge. Affirmed.

Laini Millar Melnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_______________________
2

Reginald John Wooten was charged in an information with one count each of 

assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), assault by means 

of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2) and to benefit 

a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A), and 

assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3). The information further charged

four counts of making a criminal threat (§ 422, subd. (a); counts 4 through 7). It was 

specially alleged that, with the exception of count 2, the offenses were committed to 

benefit a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision 

(b)(1)(B), and that, with the exception of counts 1 and 2, a principal in the commission of 

the offenses was armed with a firearm (a handgun) pursuant to section 12022, 

subdivision (a)(1). As to all counts it was specially alleged that Wooten had suffered one 

prior serious or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-

(j), 1170.12). Wooten pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the special 

allegations.

On July 9, 2015, Wooten agreed to plead no contest to assault with a deadly 

weapon (count 1), assault with a firearm (count 3) and to two counts of making a criminal 

threat (counts 4 and 5) and to admit the attendant gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)) and 

prior strike enhancement allegations. At the time he entered his plea, Wooten was 

advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which he 

stated he understood. Wooten’s counsel joined in the waivers of his constitutional rights. 

The trial court expressly found Wooten’s waivers, plea and admissions were voluntary, 

knowing and intelligent.

The trial court sentenced Wooten in accordance with the negotiated plea 

agreement to an aggregate state prison term of 16 years, four months consisting of eight 

years for assault with a deadly weapon (the four-year upper term doubled under the Three 

Strikes law), plus five years for the gang enhancement, plus two consecutive terms of 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

eight months (one third the two-year middle term) for making a criminal threat. The 

remaining counts and special allegations were stricken pursuant to the negotiated 

agreement. The court awarded presentence custody credit of 285 days and ordered 

Wooten to pay statutory fines, fees and assessments.

Wooten filed a timely notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted boxes

indicating his appeal was based on “the sentence or other matters occurring after the 

plea” and challenged “the validity of the plea or admission.” In his request for a 

certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied, Wooten asserted his attorney 

had coerced him to accept the negotiated plea and had rendered constitutionally 

ineffective assistance.

We appointed counsel to represent Wooten on appeal. After examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.2 On April 14,

2016, we advised Wooten he had 30 days within which to personally submit any 

contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not received a response.

A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without 

obtaining a certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion to 

suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the 

plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) Wooten did not file a motion to 

suppress evidence; and the record fails to demonstrate Wooten’s trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance at any time during the proceedings. (Strickland v. Washington

(1984) 466 U.S. 668 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].) With respect to other potential 

sentencing or post plea issues for which no certificate of probable cause is required 

because they do not in substance challenge the validity of the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.304(b)(4)(B)), we have examined the entire record and are satisfied Wooten’s 

appellate attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable 

 

2 Appellate counsel also filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial 

court’s denial of Wooten’s request for a certificate of probable cause, which we 

summarily denied. 
4

issue exists. (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 judgment is affirmed. 

GARNETT, J.*

We concur: 

ZELON, Acting, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.