File d 1/6/16 P. v. Patterson CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. PHILLIP PATTERSON, Defendant and Appellant. B263542 (Los Angele s County Super. Ct. No. NA100539)

AP PEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard
R. Romero , Judge. Affirmed.

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Suzan E. Hier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.2

An information , filed on October 16, 2014, charged Phillip Patterson with two

counts of making criminal threat s in violation of Penal Cod e section 422 , subdivision (a)
and one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a)

. It also alleged that Patterson had a serious or violent felony conviction for attempted robbery ( Pen. Code, § § 211
, 664 ) that qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law ( Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12,
subds. (a)

- (d)) and that subjected him to a sentence enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The information further alleged that Patterson had

s erved a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On January 20, 2015
, pursuant to a waiver of his trial rights and advisements as to
the cons equences of his plea , Patterson ple a d ed nolo contendere to one count of violating
Penal Code section 422 , subdivision (a) . He also admitte d his attempted robbery
conviction qualified as a “strike ” and as a serious felony for the Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement

. The trial court accepted Patterson’ s waiv ers and plea

. T he trial court imposed a sentence under t he terms of the plea agreement of 16 months
for the criminal threat s conviction , which the court doubled to 32 months as a
“strike” offense. The court also added a five

- year term for the Penal Code section 667,

s ubdivision (a)(1) enhancement. The court imp osed a restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4 , subd. (b), 1202.45), required fees (Gov. Code, § 70373; Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and awarded Patterson pre

- sentence custody and conduct credits. On April 15, 2015, Patterson filed a notice of appeal , challenging the validity of
his plea and post

- plea matters

. Patterson requested a certificate of probab le cause on the ground s that the “ ‘ victim ’ lied” and “the police report and the testimony from my preliminary hearing are two different statements.” He also complained that the trial court
erred in tre a ting his current conviction as a “strike” because t he crime did not involve
vi olence. Patterson furth er asserted that the court erred in failing to dismiss his “strike”

c onviction because the conviction occurred in 2009 and because he had “discharged his3

priso n number with no violations. ” O n April 22, 2015, the trial court denied the request
for a probab le cause certificate. We appointed counsel to represent Patterson on appeal

. After examining
the record, counsel filed a Wende br ief raising no issues and requesting that we independently review the record. ( People v. Wende (1 979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On August 26, 2015, we sent a letter to Patterson and counsel. In the letter, we directed
counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal and a copy of the Wende brief

to Patterson and informed Patterson that he had 30 days to submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, contention or argument he wished us to consider. We did not receive

a response from him.
We have independently reviewed the record on appeal. Patterson did not timely file his notice of appeal. A n appeal is taken by filing a writ ten notice of appeal with the clerk of the superior court “ within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a); People v. Mendez (1999)
19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094

- 1095.) T he same 60

- day period ap plies, where, as here, the

court renders judgment of convic tion upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere

. ( See Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a); People v. Mendez
, supra , 19 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) In this case, the trial court rendered judgment on January 20, 2015
, and Patterson filed his notice of appeal and the application for a certificate of prob able cause 85 days later, o n April 15, 2015

. “An untimely notice
of appeal is ‘wholly ineffectual: The delay cannot be waive d
, it cannot be cured by

nunc pro tunc order , and the appellate cou rt has no power to give relief .’” ( People v. Mendez
, supra , 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) In any event, Patterson’s plea and the trial court’ s denial of a certificate of probable cause limit t he potential scope of Patterson ’ s appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not af fect the plea’ s validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b);

see P en.Code, § 1237.5. [failure to obtain a certificate of probable c ause precludes an appeal from the judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere]. ) All of4

the matters that Patterson raised in his request for a certificate of probable cau se relate d to his plea agreement, or occurred before he entered his plea . We have examined the
entire record and have foun d that no issues of any sort exist, let alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. 1 We are satisfied that Patt erson’s appointed

cou nsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109

- 110; People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d

at p. 441.)
DISPOSITIO N

The judgment is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

LUI, J.

1 Patterson did not seek appellate review of the trial court’s denial of his request for a certificate of probable cause, which is reviewable only by a timely petition for a writ of mandate

. ( People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.)