Filed 1/27/14 P. v. Sullivan CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

COREY SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B249743

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct.

 No. BA374465)

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

Richman, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

Defendant and appellant Corey Sullivan entered into a case settlement agreement 

with the prosecution in which he (1) plead no contest to two counts of second degree 

robbery (Pen. Code, § 211);

1

(2) admitted suffering a serious or violent felony conviction 

(§ 667, subd. (a)), and a conviction under the three strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d),

667, subds. (b)-(i)); (3) admitted that one of the robberies was committed for the benefit 

of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)); and (4) admitted that a principal in 

one of the robberies was armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. 

(a)(1)). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, nine additional felony counts were 

dismissed and defendant was sentenced to 28 years in state prison.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal. The notice indicated the appeal is based on the 

sentence or other matters occurring after the appeal, and the appeal challenges the 

validity of the plea or admission. Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause 

was denied by the trial court.

This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On December 11, 

2013, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, asking this court to independently 

review the record for arguable appellate contentions under People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30

days. Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file his supplemental brief was 

granted.

On January 14, 2014, defendant filed a supplemental brief raising multiple issues, 

including improper denial of his motion for severance, insufficiency of the evidence to 

support his conviction as an aider and abettor, erroneous failure to dismiss the gang 

enhancement allegation, ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to a failure to advise 

defendant regarding potentially meritorious grounds for appeal and urging defendant to 

accept the case settlement rather than risk 94 years in prison if convicted at trial, and his 

guilty plea was involuntary.

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

The legal effect of a no contest plea to a felony is the same as a plea of guilty. 

(§ 1016, subd. 3; People v. Wallace (2004) 33 Cal.4th 738, 749.) Defendant’s contention 

that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever is not reviewable on appeal 

following a guilty plea. (People v. Haven (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 983, 985-986.) All of 

defendant’s contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence are also not cognizable 

on appeal. A guilty plea concedes the sufficiency of the evidence to prove guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt and waives any right to question the sufficiency of the evidence on 

appeal. (People v. Robinson (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 363, 369.)

Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not supported by the 

record on appeal. First, the appellate record does not fully set forth the interaction 

between counsel and defendant, nor does it contain an explanation for trial counsel’s 

actions. Under these circumstances, relief cannot be granted on direct appeal. (People v. 

Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 

1031.) On the face of the record, it appears counsel reasonably recommended that 

defendant enter into the case settlement agreement, which produced a sentence of less 

than one-third of defendant’s maximum exposure. Defendant makes no showing of what 

potentially meritorious appellate issues counsel failed to disclose, or how he was 

prejudiced from the purported nondisclosure. Nothing in the appellate record suggests 

that trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or 

that defendant suffered prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 

(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694.) 

Defendant’s contention that his plea was involuntary is not supported by the 

record. The trial court did not coerce defendant into entering a plea and, in fact, several 

times offered to send the case to Department 100 for trial assignment if defendant did not 

want to settle the case. While defendant may have been unhappy with a settlement 

resulting in a 28-year state prison sentence, that result was fairly attributable to 

defendant’s criminality and not coercion on the part of the trial court.
4

We have examined the entirety of the appellate record and find no arguable 

appellate contentions. The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 

259.)

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

MOSK, Acting P. J.

MINK, J.*

 

* Retired judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.