People v. Pyburn CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS271310
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court denied Pyburn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and refused to issue a certificate of probable cause. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Pyburn's claims were not cognizable on direct appeal without a certificate of probable cause or a writ of mandate.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“Moreover, 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 did not review the merits of the trial court's decision because it held the issue was procedurally barred from direct appeal without a certificate of probable cause. |
Denial of 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.)” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court held that the denial was not reviewable on direct appeal because Pyburn did not file a petition for a writ of mandate, which is the exclusive method of review for such denials. |
Validity of guilty plea (voluntariness and IAC)“Without a certificate of probable cause, Pyburn 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.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court held that challenges to the validity of the plea itself, including voluntariness and pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel, are not cognizable on direct appeal without a certificate of probable cause. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed 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 identify issues that might arguably support the appeal.
- 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.
- 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. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1 — Issues beyond the limited scope of review on appeal from a guilty plea are not cognizable without a certificate of probable cause.
- relied: People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574 — Supports the limitation on issues reviewable on appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea.
- relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on matters outside the record must be raised by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
- relied: People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630 — Challenges to a guilty plea based on matters outside the record must be raised by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the procedural rules governing appeals from guilty pleas, specifically the requirement for a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of the plea or the denial of a motion to withdraw it. It accurately cites binding authority to support the conclusion that the appellant's claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionJamie Pyburn pled guilty to first degree robbery with a prison prior and strike prior for a stipulated 13-year term; the trial court denied his motion to withdraw the plea, sentenced him per the agreement, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Pyburn filed a supplemental brief attacking the plea, counsel, and the prosecutor, and the Court of Appeal held all the issues were non-cognizable without a certificate of probable cause (or belonged on habeas or writ of mandate), found no arguable issues after independent review, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Pyburn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (coerced package deal / ineffective assistance)“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.)” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Penal Code section 1237.5 and People v. Johnson squarely hold that an appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is in substance an attack on the plea's validity and requires a certificate of probable cause. The certificate was denied and no writ was sought, so the court correctly declined to reach the merits. |
Denial of Pyburn'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.) Pyburn did not petition for writ of mandate.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Castelan and settled practice hold that the trial court's refusal to issue a certificate is challenged by writ of mandate, not on the appeal itself. Pyburn filed no writ petition, so the court properly treated the denial as unreviewable on this appeal. |
Validity of the guilty plea (knowing, voluntary, intelligent; coercion via package deal)“Without a certificate of probable cause, Pyburn 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.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Section 1237.5 and rule 8.304(b)(4), as construed in Kaanehe, bar review of plea-validity claims absent a certificate; the court's restatement of the rule is accurate and its application to these facts is straightforward. |
Pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged Brady violation raised in Pyburn's supplemental brief“Pyburn's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and other challenges to his guilty plea, based on matters outside the record, must be raised by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not by direct appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court These claims both predate the plea (barred by section 1237.5 without a certificate) and depend on text messages, phone calls, and investigation outside the appellate record, which Mendoza Tello and Williams direct to habeas corpus. The dual rationale is correct. |
Judgment and stipulated 13-year sentence with fines and assessments (independent Wende review for post-plea error)“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel and the issues Pyburn has presented, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court performed the independent record review Wende requires and found no arguable issue; the sentence was the stipulated term and the opinion recites only a $300 restitution fine and mandatory assessments. Nothing in the opinion suggests an error the court overlooked. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed 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 — Counsel's no-merit brief should refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- 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.
- 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 litigated after the plea.
- relied: People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1 — Absent a certificate of probable cause, an appeal after a guilty plea is limited to suppression rulings and matters arising after the plea; claims going to the plea's validity are barred.
- relied: People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574 — Challenges to the validity of a plea, including pre-plea ineffective assistance claims, are not cognizable without a certificate of probable cause.
- relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Ineffective assistance claims resting on matters outside the appellate record must be raised by habeas corpus, not direct appeal.
- relied: People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630 — Claims dependent on facts outside the record are more appropriately resolved on habeas corpus.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that every issue flagged by counsel and by Pyburn attacks the validity of the plea or rests on matters outside the record, and applies section 1237.5, Johnson, Kaanehe, Castelan, and Mendoza Tello to hold them non-cognizable, while also performing the independent Wende review for post-plea error. The result follows directly from controlling authority and the court cites the right cases for each procedural bar.
Opinion
Filed 7/21/16 P. v. Pyburn 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, D069117
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS271310)
JAMIE PYBURN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie Pyburn, in pro. per.; Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jamie Pyburn pled guilty to first degree robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (a), and admitted one prison prior and one strike prior conviction, in exchange for dismissal of a charge of kidnapping for the purpose of committing robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)). The court imposed a stipulated prison sentence of 13 years.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Pyburn's mother, Reetta Pyburn,1 told Bryan Tanana, whom she resided with for a short time, that she needed money and that Pyburn would escort Tanana to an ATM to get the money so that he would not call the police. Thereafter, Pyburn went with Tanana to an ATM where Tanana withdrew $100. Pyburn told Tanana that he wanted $20.
When they returned to Tanana's apartment, Reetta took $80 that Tanana had remaining after he bought beer. Reetta and Pyburn threatened Tanana and confined him to a bedroom. After Tanana attempted to escape, Pyburn and Reetta beat, gagged, tied, and placed him in a closet. Tanana was eventually able to escape and yelled to a nearby sheriff's deputy for help.
The People charged Pyburn with first degree robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery. Approximately one week before trial, Pyburn pled guilty to first degree robbery and admitted one prison prior and one strike prior conviction. Thereafter, Pyburn moved to dismiss the charges against him and withdraw his guilty plea, arguing his "package-deal" plea was not voluntary and his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate his case, communicate with him regarding evidence of text messages and phone calls that potentially supported his claim that he was defending his mother, and failing to bring a motion to dismiss the charges against him.
1 Although Reetta Pyburn was a codefendant below, she is not a part of this appeal. She is referred to by her first name in this opinion to avoid confusion 2 The trial court denied Pyburn's motion and sentenced him to a 13-year term based on his plea agreement. The court also imposed various mandatory statutory assessments and a restitution fine in the amount of $300.
Pyburn appealed, challenging the validity of his plea and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied Pyburn's request for a certificate of probable cause based on ineffective assistance and coercion in the plea process. Pyburn later filed an amended notice of appeal, indicating his appeal was based on his sentence or other matters occurring after his plea. Pyburn's amended notice of appeal also indicated his appeal challenged the validity of his plea and referred to his prior request for a certificate of probable cause, which had been denied.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders)): (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion or improperly denied Pyburn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) whether the trial court erred when it denied Pyburn's request for a certificate of probable cause, and (3) whether Pyburn's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
We granted Pyburn permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded and argues: (1) his guilty plea was not voluntary because it was part of a "package deal"
that resulted from coercion; (2) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to 3 properly investigate his case and defenses, prepare for trial, hire an investigator, file a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995, and communicate with him regarding potentially exonerating information; and (3) the prosecutor violated Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 by not disclosing text messages on his and Reetta's phones.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel and the issues Pyburn has presented, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Moreover, the issues raised by counsel and Pyburn are not cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause.
Counsel raised issues pertaining to Pyburn's guilty plea, the trial court's denial of Pyburn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court's failure to issue 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.) Pyburn did not petition for writ of mandate. Without a certificate of probable cause, Pyburn 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).) Moreover, 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.)
Pyburn's supplemental brief solely raises issues that arose before he entered his guilty plea, including the voluntariness of his plea, ineffective assistance of counsel on 4 matters that occurred before his plea, and an alleged Brady violation. We cannot review these arguments without a certificate of probable cause because they are beyond the limited issues that are reviewable on appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea.
(People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8-9; People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 596.) Further, Pyburn's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and other challenges to his guilty plea, based on matters outside the record, must be raised by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not by direct appeal. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267; People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 690-691.)
Competent counsel has represented Pyburn on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Williams S030553 · 2013-05-06
- People v. Johnson S166894 · 2009-11-23
- People v. Richardson C049702 · 2007-10-29
- People v. Mendoza Tello S055184 · 1997-04-17
- People v. Castelan C017765 · 1995-02-28
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Kaanehe Crim. 19644 · 1977-02-17