People v. Fordley CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD251846
- Trial judge
- Eugenia A. Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Richard D. Huffman, Sr.
Analysis
The trial court accepted Fordley's guilty plea, modified the plea agreement regarding a codefendant, and imposed a 10-year sentence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Fordley could not challenge the validity of his plea without a certificate of probable cause and that his ineffective assistance claims were properly raised via habeas corpus.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of appeal challenging the validity of the guilty plea (claims of duress, medication, and DA bias)“Fordley did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and thus may not contest the validity of his plea.” | de novo | error | agree with court agree with court |
Rejection of ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal“Fordley's claim that his attorney did things he did not want her to do challenges the effectiveness of his counsel in representing him and are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus.” | de novo | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for potential error when no arguable issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after certifying no arguable issues exist.
- relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — Requires the court to independently review the record for potential error in Wende/Anders cases.
- relied: People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37 — Holds that generally no appeal may be taken from a judgment of conviction on a plea of guilty or no contest.
- relied: People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394 — Holds that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus than on direct appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the statutory bar on appealing guilty pleas without a certificate of probable cause and correctly identifies the proper vehicle for ineffective assistance claims. It follows the required Wende/Anders procedure for independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Fordley's guilty plea to seven felony counts, imposed a 10-year sentence with 76 days of credits, and ordered victim restitution, fines and fees; Fordley later wrote to the court claiming his plea was coerced. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Fordley filed a letter brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, held his plea-validity and prosecutorial-bias claims were barred for lack of a certificate of probable cause, found his ineffective-assistance claim better suited to habeas, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea and entry of judgment of conviction (challenged by defendant as coerced, under duress and on medication, and tainted by prosecutor bias)“Fordley did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and thus may not contest the validity of his plea.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court Section 1237.5 and Hunter correctly bar challenges to the validity of a guilty plea absent a certificate of probable cause; the court applied the rule to the duress/medication and prosecutor-bias claims, which go to plea validity. The court did not explicitly resolve counsel's listed question about liberally construing the notice of appeal, but the certificate bar would dispose of the plea challenge regardless. |
Trial counsel's performance in connection with the plea, sentence and restitution (ineffective assistance claim)“Fordley's claim that his attorney did things he did not want her to do challenges the effectiveness of his counsel in representing him and are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Avena supports the rule that ineffective-assistance claims depending on matters outside the appellate record are properly raised by habeas petition; nothing in the record described in the opinion would permit resolution on direct appeal. |
Sentence of 10 years (middle term plus consecutive one-third middle terms), custody credits, victim restitution, fines and fees“Following our independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under Wende and Kelly the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The sentence structure described (middle term plus consecutive one-third middle terms) is facially consistent with section 1170.1, and the credits are internally consistent. The opinion does not separately discuss the restitution issue counsel flagged, and its description of restitution as 'to be determined' sits awkwardly with counsel's reference to a 'stipulated amount,' but nothing in the opinion shows error. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the court must independently review the record and address in its opinion the contentions personally raised by the defendant.
- relied: People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37 — No appeal lies from a judgment of conviction on a guilty plea absent a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.
- relied: People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394 — Ineffective assistance claims that depend on facts outside the appellate record are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the certificate-of-probable-cause bar and the habeas rule for ineffective-assistance claims, and it addresses the defendant's personal contentions as Kelly requires. It does not expressly resolve the notice-of-appeal construction issue or the restitution issue that counsel listed, instead disposing of them through the general finding of no arguable issue.
Opinion
Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Fordley 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, D065703
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251846)
JOHN FREDRICK FORDLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In December 2013, John Fredrick Fordley pleaded guilty to assault, being a felon in possession of a firearm, making a criminal threat, attempting to dissuade a witness, unlawfully taking a vehicle, evading an officer and burglary. At the sentencing hearing, based on Fordley's request, the parties stipulated to modification of the plea agreement to strike a provision to not prosecute another individual. In accepting this modification, the court explained to Fordley that the District Attorney could file charges against that individual, but there was no promise that charges would be filed.
The trial court imposed a 10-year sentence, comprised of the middle term of six years for the assault charge, plus one-third the middle term, or 8 months, consecutive, for each of the other six counts. Fordley was awarded a total of 76 days credits, comprised of 38 actual days and 38 days of Penal Code section 4019 credits.
(Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He was ordered to pay victim restitution, in an amount to be determined, and ordered to pay certain fines and fees.
In January 2014, Fordley sent a letter to the court, complaining, among other things, that he was coerced into entering his plea and wanted to withdraw his plea.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether (1) his notice of appeal should be liberally construed as to render his challenges to his plea and judgment, as detailed in his letter to the court, cognizable on appeal, (2) if so, was his waiver of his constitutional rights voluntary and knowing, (3) did the court abuse its discretion in ordering a stipulated amount in victim 2 restitution, and (4) are his plea, sentence or restitution orders invalid as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Fordley filed a letter brief claiming (1) his attorney did things he did not want her to do, including speaking to the codefendant and breaking attorney-client confidentiality, (2) he was under duress and on medications when the court accepted his guilty plea, and (3) the district attorney was biased against him and lied. Fordley does not support his contentions with any argument or citations. Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
Generally, no appeal may be taken from a judgment of conviction on a plea of guilty or no contest. (§ 1237.5; People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41.) An exception to this general rule exists where the defendant obtains a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subds. (a) & (b).) Fordley did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and thus may not contest the validity of his plea. This includes his claims that he was under duress and on medications when the court accepted his plea and that the district attorney was biased against him and lied. Fordley's claim that his attorney did things he did not want her to do challenges the effectiveness of his counsel in representing him and are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 418-419.)
Following our independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. Competent counsel has represented Fordley on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Kelly S133114 · 2006-11-27
- People v. Hunter C034939 · 2002-07-11
- People v. Avena No. S004422. Crim. No. 22485 · 1996-06-10
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12