Filed 5/15/13 P. v. Mahler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

DAVID MAHLER, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B241517 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BA323719) 

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

A. Marcus, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________________________ 
2 

This case comes before us a second time. David Mahler was convicted of the 

second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) of Kristen Baldwin, with a firearm-use 

enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and of assault with a firearm against Donald Van 

Develde (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). On appeal, we concluded the trial court improperly 

instructed the jury on felony murder, reversed the murder conviction, and remanded for 

further proceedings. (People v. Mahler B220082 (Sept. 7, 2011) nonpub. opn.) 

 Following remand, the trial court granted Mahler’s request to represent himself 

(Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562]) on 

November 29, 2011. 

 On March 2, 2012, the court granted Mahler’s request to rescind his pro per status. 

Represented by retained counsel, Mahler entered a negotiated plea of guilty to voluntary 

manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), added as amended count 3, and he admitted a firearmuse enhancement (§ 12022.5). In return, Mahler was to be sentenced to an aggregate 

state prison term of 21 years, consisting of the 11-year upper term for voluntary 

manslaughter, plus the 10-year upper term for the firearm-use enhancement, and a 

concurrent three-year term for assault with a firearm.2

 

 At sentencing on April 27, 2012, the trial court heard Mahler’s motions, in which 

he maintained that his current plea constituted one rather than two strikes, that mitigating 

factors justified imposition of middle terms and that sentencing him to upper terms on the 

offense and the enhancement violated section 1192.7. The court denied the motions and 

sentenced Mahler in accordance with the plea agreement. The murder count was 

dismissed on the People’s motion. 

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

assessment on each count and a $4,000 restitution fine. The court imposed and 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2

 The two-year term reflected in the abstract of judgment for assault with a firearm 

appears to have been clerical error. The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected to 

conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and corresponding minute 

order. (See People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89.) 
3 

suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. The court awarded 

Mahler 2,061 days of presentence credit (1,792 actual days and 269 days of conduct 

credit). 

 Mahler filed a timely notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted box 

indicating, “[t]his appeal is based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the 

plea” and attached a typed list of assertions attacking the validity of his agreed-upon 

sentence. Mahler did not request a certificate of probable cause. 

 We appointed counsel to represent Mahler on appeal. 

 After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues 

were raised. On December 10, 2012, we advised Mahler he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has 

been received to date.3

A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without 

a certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress 

evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s 

validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) Mahler’s appeal is inoperative to the 

extent he is challenging the validity of his plea by challenging the sentence imposed in 

accordance with the terms of his plea. The issues specifically identified in Mahler’s 

typed attachment to his notice of appeal can only be construed as an attack on the validity 

of the plea itself, or are not germane to his conviction or sentence or concern matters that 

are not supported in the record on appeal. 

With respect to other potential sentencing or post-plea issues that do not in 

substance challenge the validity of the plea itself, we have examined the record and are 

satisfied Mahler’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no 

arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 

 

3 Counsel filed two motions, which this Court granted, for judicial notice 

(12/10/2012), and to augment the record (2/4/2013). 
4 

145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende 

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. The superior court is directed to prepare and forward to 

the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation an amended abstract of judgment 

changing Mahler’s sentence for assault with a firearm (count 2) from two years to three 

years to conform to trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. 

 ZELON, J. 

We concur: 

PERLUSS, P. J. 

WOODS, J.