People v. Sandoval CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS268111
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted Sandoval's guilty plea to burglary, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed her on probation with a condition of 365 days in a residential treatment program. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal because Sandoval failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the plea or sentence.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of certificate of probable cause (CPC)“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.) Sandoval did not file a petition for writ of mandate.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's denial of the CPC. Instead, it held that the denial was not cognizable on direct appeal because Sandoval did not file a timely petition for writ of mandate, which is the exclusive remedy for such denials. This aligns with established California law regarding the procedural requirements for challenging CPC denials. |
Validity of guilty plea and sentence“Without a certificate of probable cause, Sandoval cannot contest the validity of her 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).)” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court determined that the issues regarding the validity of the plea and the agreed-upon sentence were not cognizable on appeal because Sandoval waived her right to appeal the sentence and did not obtain a CPC. The court correctly applied the statutory and rule-based limitations on appellate jurisdiction for defendants who have not secured a CPC. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying any possible issues, even if not arguable, to facilitate independent review.
- 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.
- relied: People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185 — Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by timely petition for a writ of mandate.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies that without a certificate of probable cause, the defendant cannot appeal the validity of the plea or the agreed-upon sentence. The court properly relied on Wende and Anders to conduct its independent review and found no arguable issues, adhering to the strict jurisdictional limits imposed by Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Sandoval's guilty plea to burglary with a stipulation that the property exceeded $950, suspended imposition of sentence, placed her on probation with 365 days in local custody (served in a residential treatment program) and 76 days of credit, and denied her request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal under Wende/Anders, appointed counsel raised no arguable issues, Sandoval filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, held the plea-related and Proposition 47 issues were not cognizable without a certificate of probable cause, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment entered on the negotiated guilty plea (probation with 365 days custody per the stipulated disposition)“In accordance with the parties' agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Sandoval on probation with a condition that she serve 365 days in local custody.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted Wende independent review and found no arguable issue. Because Sandoval pleaded guilty, stipulated to the $950 value, and received the agreed disposition with no sentencing discretion exercised, any challenge to the plea's validity or the agreed sentence requires a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 and People v. French; none was issued. Nothing in the opinion suggests a post-plea or suppression issue cognizable without a certificate. |
Denial of Sandoval'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. (People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.) Sandoval did not file a petition for writ of mandate.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court correctly stated that denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewed by writ of mandate, not on direct appeal, and Sandoval filed no writ petition. Declining to reach the merits of the denial is consistent with Castelan and section 1237.5. |
Whether the felony conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (raised by counsel as a possible issue)“Moreover, the issues raised by counsel are not cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, Sandoval cannot contest the validity of her plea” | de novo | not reached | agree with court Sandoval's Proposition 47 contention attacks the stipulated $950 value underlying her plea and thus the plea's validity, which is barred on appeal without a certificate. The court's refusal to reach it is correct; the opinion's reference to a conviction for 'petty theft with a prior' appears to be a loose description since she pleaded to burglary, but it does not affect the result. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court 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 identifying possible issues for the court's consideration.
- relied: People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 — A certificate of probable cause is required to challenge an agreed-upon sentence where the trial court exercised no sentencing discretion.
- relied: People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185 — Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by timely petition for writ of mandate, not on direct appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the standard Wende procedure, correctly identifies that every issue flagged by counsel attacks the plea or the stipulated sentence and so requires a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, French, and Castelan, and notes no writ was filed. It is brief and contains a minor misdescription of the offense as petty theft with a prior rather than burglary, and does not mention that a Proposition 47 remedy would lie by petition in the trial court under section 1170.18, but the result is sound.
Opinion
Filed 8/10/15 P. v. Sandoval 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, D067344
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS268111)
ALICIA SANDOVAL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Alicia Sandoval pleaded guilty to burglary. The parties stipulated that the value of the property was over $950. The parties agreed that Sandoval would be screened for the drug court program. If Sandoval was not accepted into the program, she would be placed on probation and ordered to serve 365 days in custody in a residential treatment program. As part of her guilty plea, Sandoval waived issues relating to her stipulated sentence and any strike priors.
In accordance with the parties' agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Sandoval on probation with a condition that she serve 365 days in local custody. The court awarded 76 days of presentence custody credit and ordered Sandoval released to a residential treatment program.
Sandoval appealed, challenging the validity of her plea. She requested a certificate of probable cause, stating: "I have probable cause to believe that I was charged with a felony burglary PC 459 when my charge was under the amount of $950.00. District Attorney verbally made it $950.00, and I would keep my felony charge. I believe I am entitled to Prop 47, and my felony would be a misdemeanor." The court denied Sandoval's request for a certificate of probable cause.
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 (1) Sandoval's waiver of her right to appeal was valid, (2) Sandoval's guilty plea was constitutionally valid, (3) the trial 2 court abused its discretion in denying Sandoval's request for a certificate of probable cause, (4) there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea, and (5) the conviction for petty theft with a prior should be reduced to a misdemeanor in light of Proposition 47, enacted by voters in November 2014. We granted Sandoval permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She 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. Moreover, the issues raised by counsel are not cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, Sandoval cannot contest the validity of her 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).) 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.) 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.) Sandoval did not file a petition for writ of mandate.
Based on our independent review of the complete record, we find no arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Sandoval on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. French S148845 · 2008-03-27
- People v. Castelan C017765 · 1995-02-28
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12