Filed 1/19/22 P. v. Askia CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ABDUL MAJEED ASKIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B314166

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA063233)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.

Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

This is the third appeal brought by defendant Abdul 

Majeed Askia following his convictions for attempted murder and 

assault with a deadly weapon. In defendant’s first appeal, we 

remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to 

strike defendant’s prior serious felony enhancement. The 

trial court declined to strike the enhancement. In defendant’s 

second appeal, we affirmed the judgment, but directed the trial 

court to correct two errors in the abstract of judgment. The trial 

court made those corrections. The trial court later identified a 

third error, which the trial court corrected in an order. 

This third appeal is from the order correcting the abstract 

of judgment. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 

(Serrano), identifying no issues. Defendant filed two

supplemental briefs.

We have reviewed the record and conclude the abstract of 

judgment now correctly reflects the judgment, and there are no 

arguable issues on appeal. The issues defendant raises in his 

supplemental briefs are without merit or not properly before us. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We provided a detailed summary of the underlying facts in 

our opinion from defendant’s first appeal, People v. Askia

(July 29, 2019, B290450) [nonpub. opn.]. In short, the 

prosecution presented evidence that in June 2014, defendant 

attacked the woman with whom he was living, stabbing her 

multiple times with a knife and either strangling her or stepping 

on her neck, fracturing her vertebrae in the process. The victim 

fell unconscious from her injuries but survived. 
3

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An information charged defendant with attempted murder

(count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2), and alleged 

enhancements for use of a deadly and dangerous weapon in the 

commission of the attempted murder (Pen. Code1, § 12022, 

subd. (b)(1)), and infliction of great bodily injury in the 

commission of both the attempted murder and the assault 

(§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The information alleged that defendant 

suffered a prior conviction for murder within the meaning of the 

“Three Strikes” law.2

The trial court initially found defendant incompetent to 

stand trial, and he spent time at Patton State Hospital. Trial 

ultimately occurred, and the jury convicted defendant of both 

counts and found the enhancement allegations true. The trial 

court found defendant previously had been convicted of murder in 

1974. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison on the 

attempted murder count, with a five-year enhancement for the 

prior conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and a 

three-year enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury under 

section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The trial court stayed the deadly 

and dangerous weapon enhancement under section 12022, 

subdivision (b)(1). The trial court stayed rather than pronounce 

sentence on the assault charge under section 654, and did not 

pronounce sentence on the accompanying bodily injury 

enhancement. 

1 Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

2 The information contained other allegations that the 

trial court dismissed on the prosecution’s motion. 
4

In defendant’s first appeal, we modified the judgment to 

impose, then stay, the sentence for the assault charge and its 

accompanying bodily injury enhancement, and to strike, rather 

than stay, the deadly weapon enhancement. As modified, we 

affirmed the judgment. We remanded, however, for the 

trial court to exercise its newly enacted discretion whether to 

strike the five-year enhancement under section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1). 

On remand, the trial court held a hearing with defendant 

and his counsel present, and declined to exercise its discretion 

to strike the five-year enhancement under section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1). Consistent with our instructions, the trial 

court imposed, then stayed, sentence on the assault count and its 

accompanying bodily injury enhancement, and struck the deadly 

weapon enhancement. The trial court prepared an amended 

abstract of judgment dated July 1, 2020. 

Defendant filed a second appeal. His appointed counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court 

review the record and determine whether any arguable issue 

existed on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental brief 

challenging the trial court’s decision not to strike the section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1) enhancement, and raising various other issues. 

We resolved defendant’s second appeal in People v. Askia

(Nov. 19, 2020, B304380) [nonpub. opn.]. We reviewed the record 

and found no arguable issue. We concluded defendant had 

forfeited his challenge to the trial court’s decision to leave the 

five-year enhancement in place, and on the merits, the trial court 

had not abused its discretion. We held that defendant’s other 

arguments were not cognizable in that appeal, either because 
5

they concerned issues that were, or could have been addressed in 

his first appeal, or were beyond the scope of what the trial court 

addressed upon our limited remand following the first appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirmed the judgment. 

Our opinion also identified two clerical errors in the

July 1, 2020, abstract of judgment. First, although the trial court 

had left the five-year enhancement under section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1) in place, that enhancement did not appear in 

the abstract of judgment. Second, although the trial court had 

imposed a sentence for the assault count, stayed pursuant to 

section 654, the abstract of judgment did not indicate the 

sentence imposed. We directed the trial court to correct these 

errors.

The trial court then prepared a second amended abstract of 

judgment dated March 1, 2021. Consistent with our instructions, 

the second amended abstract included the five-year enhancement 

under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and further indicated the 

trial court had imposed, then stayed, the middle term on the 

assault count. 

Upon receipt and review of the second amended abstract of 

judgment, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sent 

a letter to the trial court noting that the abstract did not include 

the enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), the 

deadly and dangerous weapon enhancement. The trial court 

responded to the letter by issuing an order on June 14, 2021,

explaining that the deadly and dangerous weapon enhancement 

had been stricken as we directed in defendant’s first appeal, and 

thus properly was omitted from the abstract of judgment. 

In its order, however, the trial court noted a previously 

undiscovered error. The second abstract of judgment 
6

inadvertently indicated the two bodily injury enhancements 

under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) were both imposed on 

count 1, attempted murder, rather than one enhancement on 

count 1 and the other on count 2.3 The trial court ordered this 

error corrected. The trial court then issued a third amended 

abstract of judgment, dated July 12, 2021, indicating one threeyear bodily injury enhancement on the attempted murder count, 

and a second such enhancement on the assault count, with that 

second enhancement stayed under section 654. 

Defendant timely appealed from the trial court’s order

correcting the abstract of judgment. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel filed a brief identifying no appealable 

issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in 

Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Under those procedures, 

we have no duty independently to review the record for 

reasonably arguable issues, although we must evaluate any 

arguments raised by defendant in his supplemental briefing. 

(People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039–1040, review 

granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We nonetheless have reviewed 

independently the full record, thus satisfying our obligations 

under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, as well. We therefore need 

not decide whether Wende or Serrano applies to this appeal.

We first address the arguments raised in defendant’s two 

supplemental briefs. He characterizes the trial court’s order 

correcting the abstract of judgment as “resentencing” him, and 

claims he was wrongly denied appointment of counsel and a 

3 This error also appeared on the first amended abstract of 

judgment dated July 1, 2020. 
7

hearing. Defendant’s characterization is incorrect, because the 

trial court did not resentence defendant or otherwise modify his 

sentence. Rather, the trial court corrected the abstract of 

judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment, a 

judgment defendant already has had the opportunity to challenge 

in his two prior appeals, and which we have previously affirmed. 

We are aware of no authority that a criminal defendant is 

entitled to counsel and a hearing when the trial court merely 

corrects clerical errors, nor does defendant cite any such 

authority.

Defendant contends that his appointed appellate counsel 

“abandon[ed]” him by not asserting the arguments he proposed or 

“asking [defendant’s] views on the issues.” Our own independent 

review of the record reveals no errors on the part of the trial 

court, and therefore no arguments of merit appellate counsel 

could have put forth.

Appellate counsel has complied with her duty. 

Defendant argues that law enforcement and the United 

States Department of Homeland Security have threatened and 

orchestrated violent attacks against him to obstruct his public 

speaking. He demands an evidentiary hearing to determine the 

validity of his claims. These arguments are unrelated to the 

order from which defendant appeals, and therefore are not 

properly before us. 

Defendant contends throughout his “Judicial Process” there 

has been “negligence or clerical error,” “newly discovered 

evidence,” and an unidentified issue with a Marsden4 hearing.

Apart from the reference to clerical error, these arguments would 

4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
8

appear to be unrelated to the order from which he appeals, and 

again are not properly before us. As to any clerical error, our 

independent review indicates the trial court has remedied all 

such errors and the most recent abstract of judgment accurately 

reflects the actual judgment.

As he did in his supplemental brief filed in his second 

appeal, defendant raises arguments concerning his treatment at 

Patton State Hospital. Again, these arguments are unrelated to 

the order from which he appeals and are not properly before us.

Assuming arguendo this appeal is subject to Wende review, 

we have reviewed the record and find no arguable issue. 

Appointed counsel has fully complied with counsel’s

responsibilities and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly 

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 

pp. 441–442.)

DISPOSITION

The order correcting the abstract of judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CHANEY, J.