F088631_20250827

Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Parke CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT¹

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Charles J. Lee, Judge.

Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for appellant, Rahmad Kerel Parke, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the case’s relevant facts.

Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.

Following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In January 2022, appellant was charged with two counts of murder, with enhancements alleging the use of a deadly weapon and the special circumstance of committing multiple murders. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty. Shortly thereafter, the proceedings were suspended pending a mental competence evaluation under Penal Code section 1368. After multiple continuances and evaluations, appellant was found competent to stand trial.

After a preliminary hearing, the people filed a first amended information, alleging two counts of murder with enhancements for use of a deadly weapon. The People elected not to seek the death penalty. The preliminary hearing evidence showed appellant had beaten one of the victims to death with a wooden chair leg and stabbed another to death with a pair of scissors before dragging that victim outside of the apartment where the attack had taken place. Appellant was related to the victims and was moving into an apartment that the victims owned and were renovating.

Appellant subsequently pleaded no contest to the first amended information in exchange for a stipulated term of 52 years to life. As part of that plea agreement, appellant agreed to waive his appellate rights in exchange for the sentence. The rights waived specifically included the right to withdraw his guilty plea.

The court received the first amended information and took appellant’s change of pleas on May 16, 2024. The court conducted a thorough plea colloquy with appellant, affirming among other things that appellant had sufficient time to discuss the pleas with his counsel, understood and willingly gave up the rights enumerated in the plea form, including his appellate rights, was aware he was pleading to a term of 52 years to life, and did not have any additional questions. The factual basis for the pleas was made pursuant to People v. West² and the preliminary hearing transcript. The court accepted the pleas and found appellant had “freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and entered into his no contest pleas.”

Approximately a month later, appellant returned to the court for sentencing. At that time, appellant made a Marsden³ motion and, alternatively, requested he represent himself. At the Marsden hearing, appellant alleged he had felt coerced to enter his pleas and now wanted to go to trial. Counsel outlined the many discussions they had had with appellant preceding the pleas and in doing so, noted the pleas had removed the possibility of a sentence of life without parole. Based on the discussion, the trial court denied the Marsden motion. In the following proceedings, however, the trial court granted appellant the right to represent himself.

Appellant then immediately sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court ordered briefing on the request, to which appellant purportedly submitted two letters and the People submitted an opposition. Appellant again alleged he was coerced into entering a no contest plea. The People argued these claims failed to substantiate how appellant was coerced and noted the benefits of his pleas, including imposition of less time than pleas to the original information.

At the hearing on appellant’s motion, the trial court noted it had not received any of his letters, although the People confirmed they had received them. The court recessed in order to review the letters. When it reconvened, the court heard argument from appellant and the People before denying appellant’s request on the grounds that the court’s recollection and the transcript did not reflect any evidence of coercion or concern and appellant had failed to demonstrate good cause to withdraw his plea. Appellant was then sentenced in line with his plea agreement.

This appeal timely followed.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.