Opinion
C090054
05-05-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRY CHAFIN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF190654)
Defendant Terry Chafin pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia in jail and admitted a prior strike allegation. In negotiating the plea agreement, defendant and the prosecution agreed defendant would preserve his right to appeal the trial court's denial of defendant's Trombetta motion to dismiss. (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 .) The trial court accepted the plea with that understanding.
Defendant appeals the Trombetta ruling but acknowledges such rulings generally do not survive a no contest plea. He asks us to nonetheless reach the merits of his appeal or, in the alternative, remand the matter and allow him to withdraw his plea. The People agree defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and so do we. We accordingly remand the matter to give defendant an opportunity to do so.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with possessing a controlled substance and paraphernalia in jail. The information further alleged he had a prior strike and had served two prior prison terms. Defendant filed a Trombetta motion to dismiss based on the alleged failure to preserve exculpatory evidence relating to video surveillance inside the correctional facility. The trial court denied the motion.
On the same day, defendant entered a plea of no contest to felony possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia in jail for a stipulated low term of two years and admitted the prior strike allegation for an aggregate state prison commitment of four years. The parties agreed defendant would preserve his right to appeal the trial court's Trombetta ruling. With that understanding, the court accepted defendant's plea and granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the two prior prison term allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison, in accordance with the plea agreement.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and received a certificate of probable cause as required under Penal Code section 1237.5.
All further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
DISCUSSION
Section 1237.5 governs appeals following guilty pleas. (§ 1016, plea 3 [the legal effect of a no contest plea to a crime punishable as a felony is the same as that of a guilty plea for all purposes].) It provides a certificate of probable cause allows a defendant to challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea. (People v. De Vaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895.) However, a guilty plea "constitutes an admission of each essential element of the charged offenses" such that a defendant " 'concedes that the prosecution possesses legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove [the] defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Halstead (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) In other words, when a defendant enters into a guilty plea, he or she "admits the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and is therefore not entitled to a review on the merits." (People v. Meyer (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1157.)
"Because of these implications, on an appeal following a guilty plea, '[a] defendant . . . can raise only those questions which go to the power of the state to try him despite his guilt. In other words, in the language of the statute, defendant can only raise "grounds going to the legality of the proceedings." [Citation.]' [Citation.] What may not be appealed are 'issues relating to [a defendant's] guilt or to the procedure which would otherwise be required to establish his guilt.' [Citation.] What may be appealed are claims, 'which, if true, would preclude the state from prosecuting [a defendant] despite his guilt.' " (People v. Halstead, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 778.)
Because a Trombetta motion goes to the unfair impact lost evidence would have on a defendant's opportunity to establish his innocence, it does not survive a guilty plea. (See People v. Halstead, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 780.) The parties' agreement to preserve such an appeal does not negate the legal effect of the plea. "An issue which is not cognizable on appeal following a guilty plea cannot be made cognizable by agreement of the parties or by the issuance of a certificate of probable cause." (People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 43.) Because defendant cannot as a legal matter receive the benefit of his plea agreement, the appropriate remedy in this instance is to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, if he so chooses. (People v. Hollins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 567, 574-575.) We will give defendant an opportunity to do so.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to permit defendant, within 30 days after the remittitur is filed in the trial court, to make a motion to withdraw his plea. If defendant files the motion, the superior court shall reinstate the original charges, if the prosecution so moves. If defendant does not file the motion within the time limit set forth herein, the superior court shall reinstate the original judgment.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Krause, J.