Filed 6/3/24 P. v. Selim 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

PETER A. SELIM,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B332209

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA130802)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed. 

Lori A. Nakaoka, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________
2

INTRODUCTION

Peter A. Selim appeals from his convictions pursuant to a 

negotiated plea for possession of a dirk or dagger and dissuading 

a witness. We appointed counsel to represent Selim in this 

appeal. Selim’s appointed counsel reviewed the record and did

not identify any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Nor, after reviewing the record independently,

have we. Therefore, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In an amended information, the People charged Selim with 

three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(1))

1 involving a single victim, one count of possession of 

a dirk or dagger (§ 21310), and one count of dissuading a witness 

(§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The People provided notice that the 

offenses were serious felonies within the meaning of Penal Code 

section 1192.7, subdivision (c), and violent felonies within the 

meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c). The People alleged as 

to all three counts that Selim had two prior felony convictions 

within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4); Selim was 

armed with and used a weapon at the time of the commission of 

the offenses within the meaning of California Rules of Court, 

rule 4.421(a)(2); and Selim committed the offenses while “he was 

on probation, mandatory supervision, post release community 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal 

Code.
3

supervision, and parole, within the meaning of California Rules 

of Court, rule 4.421(b)(4).” 

Selim petitioned for mental health diversion prior to trial

pursuant to section 1001.36. After a hearing, on June 21, 2023 

the trial court denied his petition, finding he posed an 

unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the 

community. (Id., subd. (c)(4).) 

On July 6, 2023, following advisement and waiver of his 

constitutional rights, Selim, represented by counsel, pleaded no 

contest to possession of a dirk or dagger and to dissuading a 

witness.2 The trial court accepted Selim’s plea, finding Selim had 

freely and voluntarily entered into the plea and knowingly and

intelligently waived his statutory and constitutional rights. 

On July 14, 2024 the trial court sentenced Selim to the 

agreed-upon sentence of two years in state prison with credit for 

time served. The court sentenced Salim on count 4 for possession 

of a dirk or dagger to the low term of 16 months and on count 5 

for dissuading a witness to eight months (one-third the middle 

term of two years). The court dismissed the remaining counts 

and allegations pursuant to the plea agreement. 

Selim filed a timely notice of appeal. On July 24, 2023 the 

court denied Selim’s request for a certificate of probable cause to 

appeal the denial of his petition for mental health diversion.3 

2 An Arabic interpreter assisted Selim during the court 

hearings, including at the plea and sentencing hearings. 

3 The appellate record does not contain the order denying 

Selim’s request for a certificate of probable cause. Selim states in 

his Wende brief that the court denied his request on July 24, 

2023. 
4

(§ 1237.5.) On November 6, 2023, this court issued an order 

limiting the issues on appeal to those that do not require a 

certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.304(b)(2) & (b)(3).)

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the record, counsel for Selim filed an 

opening brief raising no issues. On April 8, 2024 counsel 

informed Selim that she would be filing a Wende brief, and sent 

Selim the record on appeal and a copy of the brief. Counsel also 

informed Selim that he could file a supplemental brief within 30

days. We have not received a response.

A 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 assert grounds

arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s

validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have examined

the record and are satisfied that appellate counsel for Selim has

complied with her responsibilities and that there are no arguable

issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) 
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

SEGAL, J.