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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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 the 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 Plaintiff 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 because the charging document and his plea form incorrectly identified the court 

in which he suffered that conviction. We disagree and affirm.

RELEVANT 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 priors, one for 

robbery and one for assault with a deadly weapon, and nine prison priors. The complaint 

correctly stated defendant was convicted of both strike priors on February 14, 2018, in 

case number BAF1601582,

2

but incorrectly stated the robbery conviction occurred in the

United States District Court and the assault with a deadly weapon conviction occurred in 

Orange County Superior Court. Both strike convictions were listed among defendant’s 

prison 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 listed the prior convictions 

defendant admitted 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 February 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, under case number 13AF1601582 [sic], you 

were convicted of a crime of 211, which is a robbery . . . 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, on 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 defendant 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 ineffective assistance of counsel because his 

attorney advised him to admit 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, he asserts the strike is invalid because the case number associated with the 

robbery is for a Riverside Superior Court case, and not a Federal Court case as indicated 

in the strike prior allegation in the complaint and on the plea form.

4

 We 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 weapon 

was “stricken for purpose of sentencing only.”

4

 The Attorney General concedes defendant’s prior conviction for robbery did not 

take place in Federal Court.
4

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must prove his 

counsel’s performance was deficient, and that his defense was prejudiced 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 claims 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 

explanation.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.) 

Defendant 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. Defense counsel might have simply concluded the robbery 

strike alleged was valid because it correctly 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, given 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 purposes for counsel’s failing to challenge the 

validity of the alleged robbery strike prior, defendant’s claim must be rejected. 

Further, even if defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel, he 

has failed 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 had 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.