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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B 3 32209

(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 c ounsel to represent Selim in this

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

not identif

y any arguable issues. ( People v. Wende (1979)

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

,

have we. Therefore, w e affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In an amended information, t he 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 11 92.7, subdivision (c), and violent felonies within the

meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c). T he 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

, r ule 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

t he 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, f

ollowing 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

i ntelligently waived his statutory and constitution al rights

.

On July 14, 2024 t he 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 f or 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 remain ing 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 hearing s

.

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

certif icate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of C our t,

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

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the record

, counsel for Selim filed a n

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

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

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 respon se

.

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.