Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA065445
THE COURT:Jason Wil Carver, also known as Jason Scott Brodie, JWS Carver-Brodie, Jason Wil Carver-Brodie, Jason Wil Carverbrodie, appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted five prior felony strike convictions within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and one prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court granted appellant’s Romero motion in part, striking all but one of his strike priors. The trial court then sentenced him to a midterm sentence of two years, doubled for the one prior felony strike that had not been dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant’s convictions were based upon the following facts:
Because appellant pled to the charges before the preliminary hearing and trial, the facts are taken from the probation report.
On August 28, 2009, upset regarding a bill he had received, appellant went to the offices of ADT Security Systems (ADT). In attempting to enter ADT’s offices, appellant found the door locked. He angrily yelled, “Open the fucking door dam[n] it, ” and kicked and pulled on the door several times until he broke it open. Appellant entered the reception area, demanding assistance and continuing to curse.
Appellant pled no contest and was convicted of felony vandalism. At his sentencing hearing, he orally sought to set aside the plea and go to trial because he was “coerced by counsel” to accept the plea.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal stating that he challenged the validity of his plea. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised.
On November 29, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
On January 28, 2011, appellant filed a letter brief, along with a DVD of the security camera video of the charged incident, which he requested that we watch. In his letter brief, liberally construed, appellant contends, (1) that this case should be dismissed because he was not guilty of the charge against him, (2) he only pled to the charge because his attorney said, “Just admit to it, I’ll get you off, ” and that his plea should therefore have been vacated, and (3) his attorney was ineffective in advising him. These contentions are meritless.
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 (Hunter).) Section 1237.5 establishes an exception to this general rule, providing that if a defendant “has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings, [and] [t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court” (§ 1237.5, subds. (a) & (b)), constitutional grounds that mandate reversal regardless of guilt and jurisdictional or other grounds going to the legality of the proceeding resulting in the plea may be appealed. (Hunter, supra, at p.41; People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 955.) The Court of Appeal need not address a certificate issue raised by defendant on appeal from a judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea when a certificate of probable cause has not been properly obtained. (See People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1100.)
Appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Hence, he cannot raise any claim going to the validity of his no contest plea. This would include his claim that he was coerced into pleading no contest by his attorney and his claim that the trial court should have vacated his plea. With respect to appellant’s challenge to the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was obtained by duress, the fact that the motion was a post-plea proceeding does not remove it from the requirements of section 1237.5 where the motion relates to the validity of the plea. (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 62-64.) To the extent his claim may be construed as a challenge to the effectiveness of his counsel in representing him, that claim clearly involves evidence outside of the record below, including the DVD he submitted to us, and is more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 419.)
In pleading guilty, a defendant admits the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime and is thereof not entitled to a review on the merits. (Hunter, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 42.) Issues which go to guilt or innocence may not be appealed from a plea. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1178; Hunter, supra, at p. 42.) Thus, appellant’s efforts to establish that he was not guilty of the charged offense or that the prior convictions were not properly rendered are not cognizable on this appeal.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.