Filed 5/13/14 P. v. Mohamed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

EHAB ALY M OHAMED

,

Defendant and Appellant. B2 51263

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. S A 083536 )

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

Katherine Mader , Judge. Affirmed as modified

.

Ehab Aly Mohamed , in pro. pe r.; and Debra Fischl , under appointment by the

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________2

Ehab Aly Mohamed was detained by police after he attempted to open a checking

account a t U.S. Bank with a fraudulent Bank of the West cashier’s check. Text messages

on Mohamed’s cell phone revealed he had previously engaged in similar attempts to

negotiate fraudulent checks. Mohamed was arrested and charged in an information with

forgery ( Pen. Code, § 476 )

, 1 identity theft ( § 530.5, subd. (a) ) and burglary ( § 459).

Mohamed pleaded not guilty.

Prior to trial, Mohamed filed motions to suppress evidence ( § 1538.5) and to set

aside the information ( § 995), which the trial court heard and den ied

. A jury convicted

Mohamed of forgery and burglary, but acquitted him of identity theft. The court

sentenced Mohamed to the middle term of two years in county jail for forgery and stayed

sentencing for burglary pursuant to section 654. The court awar ded Mohamed

presentence custody credit of 324 days ( 171 actual days and 171 days of conduct credit).

The court ordered Mohamed to pay a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal

conviction assessment on each count and a $2 8 0 restitution fine

. The court a lso imposed

and stayed a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Mohamed timely

appealed.

DISCUSSION

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

record counsel filed an o pening brief in w hich no issues were raised. On February 7,

2014, we advised Mohamed he had 30 days within which to personally submit any

contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On February 26, 2014, we received a

handwritten supplemental brief and sworn declaration in which Mohame d challenged his

conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Mohamed’s counsel ha s

complied fully with his responsibilities on direct appeal and no arguable issues exist.

( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The

record on appeal fails to demonstrate Mohamed’s defense counsel provided ineffective

assistance. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80

L.Ed.2d 674].) Any issues raised by the supplemental declaration cannot be considered

on appeal.

Because Mohamed was not sentenced to state prison, and thus not subject to

parole, t he parole revocation fine is stricken as improperly imposed. (See § 1202.45,

subd. (a).)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to strike the imposed and stayed parole revocation fine.

As modified the judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, 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.