People v. Reed CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD245230
- Trial judge
- Kenneth K. So
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court denied Tevis Reed's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to a stipulated term of 16 years, 4 months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding that without a certificate of probable cause, Reed could not appeal the validity of his plea or the denial of the motion to withdraw it.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“Even though a motion to withdraw a guilty plea involves a proceeding that occurs after the guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of the motion.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court declined to review the merits of the trial court's decision because the issue was not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause, citing People v. Johnson. |
Sentencing to stipulated term“A certificate of probable cause is also required to challenge an agreed upon sentence where, as here, the court exercised no discretion at sentencing.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court held that the sentence was not appealable because it was a stipulated term where the trial court exercised no discretion, and no certificate of probable cause had been issued. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appointed appellate counsel when no arguable issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible issues, even if not arguable, to facilitate independent review.
- relied: People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185 — Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by a timely petition for a writ of mandate.
- relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
- relied: People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 — A certificate of probable cause is required to challenge an agreed-upon sentence where the court exercised no discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the procedural bar established in People v. Johnson and People v. French, which require a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of a plea withdrawal or a non-discretionary stipulated sentence. It properly notes that the prior writ petition was denied, leaving no cognizable issues for direct appeal under the Wende/Anders framework.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Reed's guilty plea to attempted murder, carjacking, assault, robbery and burglary with great bodily injury admissions, denied his motion to withdraw the plea (based on claimed 'package deal' pressure, gang threats, and duress), sentenced him to the stipulated 16 years, four months, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal under People v. Wende, the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues, held that the plea-validity, plea-withdrawal, factual-basis and stipulated-sentence issues were not cognizable without a certificate of probable cause, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Reed's motion to withdraw his guilty plea“Even though a motion to withdraw a guilty plea involves a proceeding that occurs after the guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of the motion.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court correctly applied Penal Code section 1237.5 and People v. Johnson, which holds that an appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea attacks the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause. Since Reed's certificate request was denied and his writ petition was rejected, the merits were properly not reached. |
Denial of Reed's request for a certificate of probable cause“Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by timely petition for a writ of mandate.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court People v. Castelan establishes that the denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewed by writ of mandate, not on direct appeal; the court had already denied Reed's writ petition in D066446. Declining to revisit the denial on appeal is consistent with that authority. |
Imposition of the stipulated sentence of 16 years, four months“A certificate of probable cause is also required to challenge an agreed upon sentence where, as here, the court exercised no discretion at sentencing.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Where the sentence is a stipulated term that is part of the plea bargain, a challenge to it is in substance a challenge to the plea and requires a certificate under section 1237.5; People v. French supports this. The court correctly declined to review the sentence. |
Acceptance of the plea and admissions (factual basis for the plea)“Here, the issues raised by counsel are not cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court A claim that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea goes to the validity of the plea and so falls within section 1237.5's certificate requirement; the court's treatment is consistent with the governing statute and rule 8.304(b)(4). The opinion does not separately analyze this issue, but the result follows from the same rule. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Where 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 no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185 — The denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by a timely petition for writ of mandate, not on direct appeal.
- relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, even though the motion is heard after the plea.
- relied: People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 — A certificate of probable cause is required to challenge a sentence agreed to as part of the plea bargain where the court exercised no sentencing discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that every issue counsel flagged attacks the validity of the plea or the stipulated sentence and therefore requires a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which Reed did not obtain and whose denial was already upheld on writ review. The authorities cited (Johnson, French, Castelan) squarely support those conclusions, and the Wende review procedure was properly followed, including giving Reed the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
Opinion
Filed 2/19/15 P. v. Reed 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, D065697
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD245230)
TEVIS REED,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed.
Laurel M. Nelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tevis Reed pleaded guilty to one count each of attempted murder, carjacking, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, robbery and burglary. He admitted inflicting great bodily injury as to the attempted murder, carjacking, and assault charges. The parties stipulated to a prison term of 16 years, four months. At the sentencing hearing, Reed moved to withdraw his guilty plea. In a sworn declaration, Reed claimed (1) "[t]his was a 'PACKAGE DEAL,' " (2) he knew his codefendants had "gang connections," and he "received threats while in custody,"
(3) he "felt [he] was being rushed to trial and [his] [l]awyer was not ready," (4) he was afraid he "would be labeled a 'snitch' and would be killed by prison gangs" if he testified at trial that he committed the crimes under duress, and (5) he "now wish[ed] to go to trial and exercise [his] right to testify and prove duress." The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Reed to prison for the stipulated term of 16 years, four months.
Reed appealed, challenging the validity of his plea and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause based on duress. Reed later filed an amended notice of appeal, indicating the appeal would be based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We denied Reed's petition for writ of mandate seeking a certificate of probable cause. (Reed v. Superior Court, D066446.)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She 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 (Wende). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), she listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether the trial court (1) erroneously denied his request for a certificate of probable cause, (2) erroneously denied his motion to 2 withdraw his guilty plea, (3) failed to ensure the existence of a factual basis for his guilty plea and admission, (4) lawfully sentenced him, and (5) whether issues 1-4 are cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We granted Reed permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.
Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by timely petition for a writ of mandate. (People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.) We denied Reed's petition for writ of mandate seeking a certificate of probable cause. (Reed v. Superior Court, D066446.) Without a certificate of probable cause, Reed cannot contest the validity of his plea; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or issues relating to matters arising after the plea was entered. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)
Here, the issues raised by counsel are not cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. Even though a motion to withdraw a guilty plea involves a proceeding that occurs after the guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of the motion. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679.) A certificate of probable cause is also required to challenge an agreed upon sentence where, as here, the court exercised no discretion at sentencing. (People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 43-44.) Competent counsel has represented Reed on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Johnson S166894 · 2009-11-23
- People v. French S148845 · 2008-03-27
- People v. Castelan C017765 · 1995-02-28
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12