Filed 7/23/13 P. v. Thomas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEITH P. THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B240461

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA045335)

APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Patricia M. 

Schnegg, Judge. Affirmed.

Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant, Keith P. Thomas, appeals from the trial court‟s order 

denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis filed with regard to four superior court 

cases: Nos. BA036950, A741808, YA045335 and BA047233.1 We affirm the trial 

court‟s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After having been released from Metropolitan Hospital, on June 7, 1989 in Case 

No. A741808, Thomas pled no contest to one count of former Penal Code section 12025, 

subdivision (b),2being a convicted felon in possession of a concealed firearm. On 

February 14, 1990, the trial court sentenced Thomas to the low term of one year four 

months in prison. 

In an information filed on May 7, 1991, Thomas was charged in Case 

No. BA036950 with one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle in violation of 

section 459. Following a hearing held on August 7, 1991, the public defender assigned to 

Thomas declared a doubt as to Thomas‟s competence. Proceedings were suspended and 

two doctors were appointed to evaluate Thomas pursuant to Evidence Code sections 

1017, 952 and 730. However, when each of the doctors went to the jail to evaluate 

Thomas, he refused to see them. Accordingly, at proceedings held on September 18, 

1991, a pretrial conference was set for October 23, 1991. On February 24, 1992, Thomas 

pled guilty to second degree burglary of a vehicle in violation of section 459. The trial 

court sentenced Thomas to the mid-term of two years in prison and ordered the sentence 

to run concurrently with any “prior uncompleted sentence(s).”

Also on February 24, 1992, in Case No. BA047233, Thomas pled guilty to 

possession of a deadly weapon (a shank) while lawfully confined in a jail or state prison 

in violation of section 4574, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced Thomas to the low 

 

1

See Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b).

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

term of two years in prison and again ordered the sentence to run concurrently with any 

“prior uncompleted sentence(s).” 

Thomas was apparently paroled in Case Nos. BA036950 and BA047233 

“sometime between February 1992 and December 1996.” “[I]n December 1996 he was 

arrested and charged in Case No. BA143056 with robbery and kidnapping to commit 

robbery.” However, “[o]n March 27, 1997, the People announced . . . they were unable 

to proceed [with the matter] and the [trial] court dismissed the case.”

Following a court trial in Case No. YA045335, on November 16, 2001 Thomas 

was found guilty of two counts of knowingly and willingly threatening the life of a judge 

in violation of section 76, subdivision (a) and six counts of making terrorist threats in 

violation of section 422. At proceedings held on December 21, 2001, the trial court 

declared a doubt as to Thomas‟s competency and stayed the criminal proceedings 

pursuant to section 1368, subdivision (a). Pursuant to section 1369, the court appointed 

Drs. Kaushal Sharma and Richard J. Lettieri to examine Thomas. At proceedings held on 

May 17, 2002, after reading the reports submitted by the two doctors, the trial court found 

Thomas competent and reinstated the criminal proceedings. Sentencing was set for 

June 19, 2002. 

At sentencing, the trial court selected count 2 (making terrorist threats in violation 

of section 422) as the base term and imposed the upper term of three years in state prison. 

The court then imposed an additional five years for the finding Thomas had suffered a 

prior serious felony conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). For counts 3, 

4 and 6 (making terrorist threats), the trial court imposed one-third the mid-term, or eight 

months as to each count, the terms to run consecutively to those imposed with regard to 

count 2 and to each other. For counts 7 and 8 (making terrorist threats), the trial court 

imposed as to each count the upper term of three years, the terms to run consecutively to 

the base term imposed with regard to count 2. With regard to counts 1 and 5 (threatening 
4

a judge), the court stayed imposition of sentence pursuant to section 654.3 In total, 

Thomas was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The court awarded Thomas presentence 

custody credit for 650 days actually served and 325 days of good time/work time, or 975 

days. The trial court then ordered Thomas to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, 

subd. (b)) and a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45).

On August 15, 2002, Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal from his convictions 

in Case No. YA045335. However, on January 15, 2003, as Thomas had failed to respond 

to the trial court‟s notice regarding representation on appeal, the court ordered the appeal 

“dismissed as abandoned.” 

Just prior to the dismissal of his appeal, on January 6, 2003 the trial court received 

from Thomas a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At proceedings held on January 24, 

2003, the trial court denied the petition, indicating it was “unintelligible in its request, 

and [was] further barred as [Thomas] ha[d] not thus far sought appropriate appellate 

relief . . . . Also, the writ present[ed] issues that could have been presented in earlier 

petitions and [was] therefore barred.”

On February 3, 2003, the trial court filed an order indicating that, “good cause 

appearing, the order of dismissal filed January 15, 2003 [was to be] vacated and the 

appeal [with regard to Case No. YA045335] . . . reinstated.” The trial court directed the 

California Appellate Project to appoint counsel for Thomas “forthwith.” On appeal, the 

matter was affirmed in full and the remittitur issued on July 6, 2004.

Since his conviction in Case No. YA045335 was affirmed on appeal, Thomas has 

filed a number of in propria persona writ petitions, the most recent of which was a 

petition for writ of error coram nobis filed in the trial court on December 12, 2011. The 

petition consisted of a document over 130 pages in length “seeking writs of error coram 

nobis [in] four cases because „petitioner had been intoxicated with anti-psychotic 

 

3

Section 654 provides in relevant part: “(a) An act or omission that is punishable in 

different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that 

provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or 

omission be punished under more than one provision.”
5

medications during the plea bargaining sessions and that constitute[d] incompetence 

under [section] 1368 . . . .‟ The specific cases referred to included: [¶] BA036950 –

sentenced 2/24/92 – 2 years state prison[,] [¶] A741808 – sentenced 2/14/90 – 16 months 

state prison[,] [¶] YA045335 – sentenced 6/19/02 – 10 years state prison [and] [¶] 

BA047233 – sentenced 2/24/92 – 2 years state prison[.] [¶] In each case, [Thomas] 

include[d] reams of paper for service on the District Attorney of Los Angeles County and 

the Attorney General of California. He ask[ed] the court to serve his documents.”

The trial court denied the petition for relief as to each cited case. The court 

indicated Thomas had made “a general statement and offer[ed] nothing to support it. His 

conclusory allegation about incompetence [was] without merit. (See People v. Karis

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 656.) [¶] [Moreover, Thomas was] responsible for service on all 

necessary parties and [could] not rely on the court for assistance.”

On February 6, 2012, Thomas filed a notice of appeal from the trial court‟s order.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief 

which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the 

record. By notice filed January 3, 2013, the clerk of this court advised Thomas to submit 

within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to 

consider. On January 16, 2013, Thomas filed a request for an extension of time, to 

April 15, 2013, to file a supplemental brief. This court granted the request. On March 4, 

2013, this court granted Thomas a second extension, allowing him to file his 

supplemental brief up to and including May 15, 2013.

On March 11, 2013, Thomas filed a letter brief in which he asserted his appellate 

counsel had been ineffective for failing to obtain for him portions of the record, as well as 

the district attorney‟s file. Thomas claimed he needed these documents to disprove the 

district attorney‟s assertion in Case No. YA045335 that he wrote threatening letters to the 

judge. The contention is without merit. Attached as exhibits to Thomas‟s document are 

two orders previously issued by this court. In an order filed June 27, 2012, this court 

stated: “Having read and considered Thomas‟ pro per request for a copy of the record on 
6

appeal in the above matter, [the court] hereby DENIES said request. Thomas was 

represented on appeal by appointed counsel who filed an opening brief which raised no 

issues and asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record. (See People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We directed appointed appellate counsel to forward the 

record on appeal to Thomas who thereafter filed a supplemental letter brief in which he 

raised numerous issues which we rejected. (People v. Thomas (April 27, 2004, B161765) 

[nonpub. opn.].) Because it thus appears Thomas already has been provided a copy of the 

record on appeal, and he has failed to state grounds that would warrant providing him a 

second copy thereof, his request is denied. Thomas‟s further request to reinstate the 

appeal similarly is denied.”

In a second order, issued by this court on July 30, 2012 and provided as an exhibit 

by Thomas, this court stated: “Having read and considered Thomas‟ renewed requests 

for a copy of the record on appeal and to reinstate the appeal in the above matter, [the 

court] hereby DENIES said requests. Thomas asserts prison officials lost his copy of the 

record on appeal when he was transferred from one prison to another. He claims he 

needs another copy of the record to show the prosecutor violated his substantive rights by 

charging six counts of making a criminal threat in violation of . . . section 422, based on a 

single threatening letter. However, the unpublished opinion filed January 28, 1991, 

indicates Thomas wrote two threatening letters and each letter threatened a judge, a 

prosecutor and an investigator. Moreover, the relevant facts are contained in this court‟s 

unpublished opinion.[4] Thus, Thomas has failed to demonstrate good cause to provide 

him a second copy of the record on appeal in this case.” 

 

4

The unpublished opinion in People v. Thomas, Case No. B161765, filed April 27, 

2004, indicates that in 1999, Judge James Brandlin “presided over a case in which three 

Rolling Nineties street gang members were accused of shooting a child who was killed in 

gang cross fire. The defendants pled guilty and were sentenced to prison. On 

August 21, 2000, Judge Brandlin received a letter threatening his life, the life of the 

prosecutor that handled the cross fire case, Valerie Cole, and the investigating officer in 

the case, Mark Campbell. The author of the letter indicate[d] he [was] a „shot caller‟ 

from the Rolling Nineties street gang. The letter threatened that if the gang member 
7

Here, as in his previous petitions, Thomas has failed to show good cause 

demonstrating it is necessary that he be provided with another copy of the record and 

portions of the district attorney‟s file in Case No. YA045335. Accordingly, it cannot be 

concluded his appellate counsel was incompetent for failing to attempt to procure these 

records for him. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 669, 693-694; 

People v .Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211; see also In re Spears (1984) 157 

Cal.App.3d 1203, 1210-1211.)

Thomas filed a second supplemental brief on April 25, 2013. In this brief, he 

asserted that, with regard to his 1989 Case No. A741808 in which he pled no contest to 

one count of former section 12025, subdivision (b), being a convicted felon in possession 

of a concealed firearm, the trial court failed to give him the opportunity to show he was 

factually innocent, his trial counsel was ineffective and the prosecutor “withheld 

information.” As to his first contention, in his brief Thomas indicates he found a gun 

under a bus stop bench, picked it up and placed it in his pocket. Although he claims he 

intended to take the gun to a police station where he could turn it in, when he was later 

stopped and searched by police officers, he was found to be in possession of the weapon. 

Moreover, rather than go to trial on the matter, at proceedings held on June 7, 1989 

Thomas chose to admit he was a convicted felon in possession of a concealed firearm by 

entering a plea of no contest to the offense.

With regard to his assertion his trial counsel was ineffective, Thomas claims his 

public defender failed to properly investigate the matter and to obtain pertinent records 

from the district attorney. In particular, Thomas indicates his counsel failed to obtain 

records regarding his history of mental illness. Although Thomas has attached as exhibits 

to his brief some documents which appear to pertain to his mental health, it is unclear 

from the records provided what Thomas‟s mental state was on June 7, 1989, the day he 

entered his plea. The only document which indicates Thomas needed to be involuntarily 

 

defendants in the cross fire case were not returned to court by October 31, 2000, Judge 

Brandlin, the prosecutor and the investigator would be killed and Judge Brandlin‟s 

courtroom would be bombed.”
8

medicated to “prevent a deterioration of his mental or physical condition” is a petition 

filed by the California Department of Corrections dated August 2, 1995, several years 

after Thomas entered his plea in Case No. A741808.

Finally, Thomas asserts the district attorney withheld information from his 

counsel. Thomas indicates the district attorney failed to inform his counsel that, before 

Thomas was detained and arrested by police officers, the officers had received a 911 call 

indicating “a man [was] yelling at [a bus stop at] the corner of Hilgard Avenue and 

Wynton.” When officers arrived at that location, they found Thomas. One of the officers 

was familiar with Thomas “from previous contacts” and when he conducted a pat-down 

search for weapons, the officer found a “loaded blue steel colt .380 caliber automatic 

pistol . . . inside [Thomas‟s] top left pocket.” 

Apart from whether the district attorney kept this information from Thomas‟s 

counsel, Thomas has failed to show it caused him prejudice. If anything, the evidence 

would have been inculpatory.

On April 25, 2013, Thomas filed an “Ex Parte Application/Affidavit to remand 

case [No.] BA036950 to [the] Los Angeles Superior Court . . . for Arraignment.” In his 

application, Thomas again asserted because the district attorney had withheld 

information, he was entitled to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on the matter. He 

asked this court to remand both Case No. BA036950 and Case No. BA047233 to the 

Los Angeles Superior Court and to direct the court to allow him to withdraw his pleas 

and go to trial. He argued he is innocent of the charges and should be allowed to proceed 

by having a jury trial in both matters.

Thomas, however, pled guilty in both cases in 1992. He then failed to seek 

review; he did not file notices of appeal and requests for certificates of probable cause. 

Moreover, in the present supplemental brief, he does not indicate he has discovered new, 

exculpatory evidence. His statement, without corroboration by independent, objective 

evidence is insufficient to warrant relief. (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 938, 945.)

In the additional supplemental brief filed on April 25, 2013, Thomas argued his 

2002 conviction in case No. YA045335 was unlawful. However, as stated above, the 
9

judgment which was entered following a court trial was affirmed on appeal by this court 

in People v. Thomas, supra, B161765. According to Thomas, the California Supreme 

Court then denied review and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the 

United States District Court (Central). In this additional brief, Thomas argues only one 

new point: that his delay in bringing this claim is justified. He asserts he failed to bring 

the claim earlier because he is a “layman in law,” lacks even a grade school education 

and was unable to understand how to make use of the exhibits provided to him. 

However, “[a] defendant appearing in propria persona is held to the same standard of 

knowledge of law and procedure as is an attorney.” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 

583, 625; see also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46.) Thomas 

had been provided a copy of the record on appeal and the relevant facts are contained in 

this court‟s unpublished opinion which was filed in April 2004, approximately seven 

years before he filed the petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. Finally, 

as the trial court indicated, Thomas has made “general statement[s] and offer[ed] nothing 

to support [them.]” 

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully 

with counsel‟s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
10

DISPOSITION

The trial court‟s order denying Thomas‟s petition for writ of error coram nobis is 

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

KITCHING, J.