Opinion
E067266
05-02-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO OSCAR CASTANEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
Sergio Oscar Castaneda, in pro. per.; and William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1503170) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elisabeth Sichel, Judge. Affirmed. Sergio Oscar Castaneda, in pro. per.; and William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 7, 2015, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Sergio Oscar Castaneda with (1) corporal injury on a spouse, Jane Doe, under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), a felony (count 1); and violation of the personal liberty of Jane Doe under Penal Code section 236, a felony (count 2). On September 27, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the charge of corporal injury on a spouse (count 1). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years, to run concurrent with the sentence he received in another case. The trial court awarded credits, and imposed fines and fees.
On November 21, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. On April 18, 2017, defense counsel submitted defendant's five-page handwritten supplement brief dated April 7, 2017. In his brief, defendant essentially challenges the validity of his plea agreement.
In this case, defendant's notice of appeal indicated that his appeal was "based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect the validity." Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause and no certificate of probable cause was granted in this appeal. Defendant's personal brief, however, does not address his sentence or matters that occurred after his plea. Instead, the brief addresses the validity of his guilty plea to his substantive offense. Defendant argues that he was pressured into entering his guilty plea and that he wanted to go to trial because he did not commit corporate injury on a spouse. He alleges that Jane Doe broke his nose and he got arrested when he took her to the hospital because she was under the influence. He states, "I call the cops for help and they take me in to jail cause the po[li]ce officer wanted to hook up [with] her, when she ran me over in front of the po[li]ce sta[t]ion." Defendant then goes on to state that "All I want is to go to tr[i]al to prove my innocence on this case." As noted, however, defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. "[W]hen a defendant pleads guilty or no contest and is convicted without a trial, only limited issues are cognizable on appeal. A guilty plea admits every element of the charged offense and constitutes a conviction [citations], and consequently issues that concern the determination of guilt or innocence are not cognizable. [Citations.] Instead, appellate review is limited to issues that concern the 'jurisdiction of the court or the legality of the proceedings, including the constitutional validity of the plea.'" (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649.) In addition, "section 1237.5 authorizes an appeal [following a guilty plea] only as to a particular category of issues," and to have these issues considered on appeal, a defendant must first take the additional procedural step of obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (Id. at p. 650.) Here, the issues raised in defendant's supplemental brief concern the determination of guilt or innocence, and are therefore not cognizable. (Id. at p. 649.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.