Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Norris CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. RAYFORD CHRISTIAN NORRIS, Defendant and Appellant. G057962 (Super. Ct. No. 19CF1175)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kathleen E. Roberts, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila O ’ Connor, under appointment by t he Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P

. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plai ntiff and Respondent.2 Defendant Rayford Christian Norris pleaded guilty to commercial burglary and grand theft. He also admitted one strike prior (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2)(A) for a robbery conviction, and seven prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)(1) , including one for the robbery prior

. The court sentenced him to four years in prison

.

Defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel by being advised to admit a facially invalid strike prior

. 1 He asserts the robbery strike prior is
invalid be cause the charging document and his plea form incorrectly identified the court
in which he suffered th at conviction

. We disagree and affirm

.

RELE VANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May 2019, defendant was charged with felony grand theft and commercial burglary. The complaint also alleged defendant had two strike prior s, one for robbery a nd one for assault with a deadly weapon , a nd nine prison pr iors. The complaint correctly stated defendant was convicted of bot h strike priors on February 14, 2018 , in

case number BAF1601582 , 2 but incorrectly stated the robbery conviction occurred in the
United States District Cou rt and the assault with a deadly weapon conviction occurred in Orange County Superior Court. Both s trike convictions were listed among defendant ’ s pris on priors with the correct date of conviction and case number , and were correctly alleged to have occurred in Riverside County

.

Defendant pleaded guilty to both of the charged offenses, admitted the robbery strike prior , and admitted seven of the prison priors , including the prison prior for
the robbery

. The plea form includes a page titled “ ADMISSION OF PRIOR
CONVICTIONS AND PRIOR PRISON TERMS ” which list ed the prior convictions
defendant admitt ed as part of his plea, including their dates of conviction, case numbers,

1 Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause to appeal the legality of his guilty plea.

2 This is a Riverside County Superior Court case number

.3

and charges. The list included the robbery conviction in case number BAF1601582
suffered on F ebruary 14, 2018 , as a strike conviction suffered in “Fed’l Ct.” and as a prior prison conviction suffered in Riverside County.

During the change of plea hearing , the court asked defendant “ Sir, is it true that on February 14, 2018, in Federal Court, unde r case number 13AF1601582 [ sic ] , you were convicted of a crime of 211, which is a robb ery

. . . which is a strike? Is that true? ” Defendant answered, “ Yes, ma ’ am. ” The court then addressed each prison prior, ending
with : “ And, finally, under

-- well, o n February 14, 2018, the one that you talked about
earlier

-- that I asked you about earlier, you ’ ve already admitted it, and I told you it was alleged, the Federal Court one, as a strike, it ’ s also alleged as a prison prior, just to let you know

. ” The court sentenced de fendant to four years in state prison ( midterm of two years for burglary doubled because of the robbery strike prior ), and struck all seven prison priors for the purpose of sentencing

. 3
DISCUSSION Defendant argues he received ineffec tive assistance of counsel because his attorney advised him to admi t to a facially invalid strike. Defendant does not challenge the accuracy of the date of conviction, case number, or charge for his robbery prior. Instead, h e asserts the strike is invali d because the case nu mber associated with the robbery is for a Riverside Superior Court case, and not a Federal Court case as indicated
in the strike prior allegation i n the complaint and on the plea form

. 4 W e are not persuaded and affirm the judgment

.

3 Neither the plea form nor the reporter’s transcript address what happened with the alleged strike prior for assault with a deadly weapon. However, the court minutes state defendant “admits all priors” and the alleged strike for assault with a deadly w ea pon was “stricken for purpose of sentencing only.”

4 The Attorney General concedes defendant’s prior conviction for robbery did no t take place in Federal Court.4 To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must prove his
counsel ’ s performa nce was deficient, and that his defense was preju diced as a result of this deficiency . ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 .) Ineffective
assistance of counsel claims are “ more appropriately made in a habeas corpus proceeding, in which the attorney has the opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her
conduct. ” ( People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936.) Therefore, such claim s must be rejected on direct appeal, unless “ (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explan ation. ” ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.)

Defend ant argues the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for failing to challenge the validity of the alleged robbery strike prior.

~ (aob 10)
~ We disagree

. Defens e counsel might have simply concluded the robbery
strike alleg ed was valid because it correct ly identified the case number, charge, and date
of conviction

. Or counsel might have concluded an objection would not change the

outcome because the court of origin for the robbery conviction could be easily changed on the plea form and in the complaint

. Or, g iven the very favorable disposition offered , counsel might have determined, and advised defendant, to admit the robbery strike , even if it was improperly alleged

. In any event, because the record does not affirmatively
disclose there could be no rational tactical purpose s for counsel’s failing to challenge the validity of the alleged robbery strike prior , defendant’s claim must be rej ected.

Further, even if defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel, he
has fail ed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice . As noted, defendant admitted he had
suffered a prison prior for a robbery conviction out of Riverside County with the same case number and date of conviction as the strike prior, and he does not allege this prison prior was invalid. Therefore, even if counsel ha d objected to the validity of the strike prior, the complaint and plea form would very likely have been corrected

.5 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

GOETHALS, J.