People v. Mohamed CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Mohamed on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On February 7, 2014, we advised Mohamed he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On February 26, 2014, we received a handwritten supplemental brief and sworn declaration in which Mohamed challenged his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Mohamed’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities on direct appeal and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The record on appeal fails to demonstrate Mohamed’s defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].) Any issues raised by the supplemental declaration cannot be considered on appeal. Because Mohamed was not sentenced to state prison, and thus not…