People v. Haros CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. SWF2400113
- Trial judge
- John M. Monterosso
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court accepted Raymond Haros's guilty plea to arson and sentenced him to two years in state custody pursuant to a stipulated agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues supporting reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a guilty plea to arson“we conclude no reasonably arguable issues support a reversal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the standard for Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found that while the trial court's inquiry could have been clearer, the plea was valid and the sentence was consistent with the stipulation. The lack of a certificate of probable cause correctly precluded review of the plea's validity under section 1237.5. The conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the record and applicable law. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and for the court to independently review the record when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and for the court to independently review the record to ensure no constitutional errors were committed.
- relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — Clarifies that a defendant who does not obtain a certificate of probable cause cannot contest the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a guilty plea appeal where counsel identifies no issues. It properly notes the jurisdictional bar to reviewing the plea's validity due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause and concludes no reasonably arguable issues exist based on the independent record review.
The trial court accepted Raymond Haros's guilty plea to arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c)) and misdemeanor methamphetamine possession, with the parties stipulating that the preliminary hearing transcript supplied the factual basis, and imposed the stipulated two-year sentence after the People dismissed a state-of-emergency allegation and a prior strike. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, held that the absence of a certificate of probable cause barred any challenge to the validity of the plea, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea and stipulated factual basis (and the potential issue whether Haros should have been permitted to withdraw the plea)“Haros did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, he cannot contest the validity of his plea.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Under Penal Code section 1237.5 and rule 8.304(b), a defendant who pleads guilty may not attack the validity of the plea on appeal without a certificate of probable cause; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 confirms this bar applies to plea-validity challenges. The court correctly treated the plea-withdrawal issue as noncognizable. The court nonetheless noted that the trial court's comments on malicious intent at the preliminary hearing did not undermine the plea; because the parties stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as the factual basis, that stipulation would satisfy the factual-basis requirement under controlling authority, so the court's conclusion is sound even though it did not cite that authority. |
Judgment and stipulated two-year sentence following guilty plea (Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record)“Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders, we affirm.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying one potential issue, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. The sentence matched the plea agreement, and nothing in the opinion's description of the record suggests an arguable error. The result follows from the cited authorities. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 is required to challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
- missed: People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432 — A trial court satisfies Penal Code section 1192.5's factual-basis requirement by eliciting a stipulation to a document such as the preliminary hearing transcript, and its factual-basis inquiry is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the certificate-of-probable-cause bar and the Wende/Anders review procedure, and its result follows from the cited authorities. It raises a concern about the adequacy of the factual-basis inquiry without citing People v. Holmes, which would have directly resolved the point given the parties' stipulation to the preliminary hearing transcript.
Opinion
Filed 9/2/25 P. v. Haros CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084811
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF2400113)
RAYMOND HAROS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Raymond Haros appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to arson in violation of Penal Code1 section 451, subdivision (c), in exchange for a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. stipulated sentence of two years and dismissal of additional allegations and a prior strike. Appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered Haros the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY At the preliminary hearing, a Riverside County fire captain testified she responded one evening to a report of a fire within a vacant business suite in a commercial strip mall. A witness working in the bakery next door reported he had heard a loud banging noise coming from the vacant suite. He saw smoke and an individual later identified as Haros inside the suite. An arson investigator determined the fire had been intentionally set in wooden beams supporting a raised alcove within the vacant suite. Police found a plastic lighter with remnants of burnt plastic in Haros’s pocket. The People filed a complaint charging Haros with arson of a structure in violation of section 451, subdivision (c). The complaint alleged that the arson occurred during a state of emergency proclaimed by the governor under section 454, subdivision (a)(2). The complaint also alleged a prior strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). Haros pleaded guilty to arson in violation of section 451, subdivision (c) and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The parties stipulated the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the guilty plea. In exchange for the guilty pleas, the People dismissed the state of emergency 2 allegation and the prior strike. The court sentenced Haros to two years in state custody consistent with the parties’ agreement. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified as a possible issue in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal whether appellant should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Haros did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, he cannot contest the validity of his plea. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3); see generally, People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676–681.) We have independently reviewed the record and have considered the possible issue identified by Haros’s counsel. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738.) In particular, we considered whether the trial court’s statements at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing as to the sufficiency of evidence of malicious intent cast doubt on Haros’s subsequent plea to a felony charge that includes such intent. Although a more clear and direct inquiry by the trial court about the factual basis for a guilty plea would have been helpful to avoid any later questions, we conclude no reasonably arguable issues support a reversal. Competent counsel has represented Haros in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Johnson S166894 · 2009-11-23
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12