Opinion
H024700.
7-3-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACY LEE CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Tracy Lee Curtis pleaded no contest to transportation of a semi-automatic Uzi assault pistol. (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (a)(1).) He obtained a certificate of probable cause and appeals from the judgment solely on the ground that "there was insufficient evidence of transportation." We agree with the People that this claim is not cognizable on appeal after a no contest plea. We therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Police stopped defendant for a traffic violation. They arrested him after discovering an outstanding warrant against him. They searched his vehicle and discovered numerous weapons, including the Uzi.
Section 12280, subdivision (a)(1), provides that "Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon . . . is guilty of a felony."
On the other hand, section 12280, subdivision (b), prohibits mere possession of an assault weapon. A violation of this statute is a felony or misdemeanor.
Defendant took the position below that he was not guilty of transportation because the statute requires transportation plus the intent to arrive at a particular destination. According to defendant, the evidence against him showed no more than possession in a vehicle, albeit a moving vehicle.
Defendant then pleaded no contest on condition that the trial court would file a certificate of probable cause so that he could test his theory on appeal. Thereafter, defendant filed a declaration in support of a certificate of probable cause and the trial court filed the certificate. Defendants notice of appeal specifies that the sufficiency of the evidence of transportation is the issue advanced.
DISCUSSION
"`It is settled that the right of appeal is statutory and that a judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute. [Citations.]" (People v. Mazurette (2001) 24 Cal.4th 789, 792.) "After a plea of guilty or its functional equivalent of no contest (nolo contendere), the appellate rights of the defendant are statutorily restricted. Under section 1237.5, no appeal can be taken by a defendant from a judgment of conviction after a plea of guilty or no contest except where defendant has filed a written statement asserting enumerated grounds going to the legality of the proceedings and the court has filed a certificate of probable cause. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d).)" (People v. Robinson (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 363, 368.) The purpose of this section is to " discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas. [Citation.]" (People v. Young (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 827, 832— 833.) "Section 1237.5 is an exception to the general rule that appeals may not be brought by defendants who have pleaded guilty or nolo contendere. This section provides the general rule that defendants who have pleaded guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause before they may bring an appeal." (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41.)
The law also "recognizes an exception to the certificate requirement of section 1237.5. This exception, stated in the second paragraph of [California Rules of Court,] rule 31(d), permits an appeal without a probable cause certificate if the appeal is based solely upon grounds (1) occurring after entry of the plea which do not challenge its validity or (2) involving a search or seizure, the validity of which was contested pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code. It further provides, that the appeal shall not be operative unless the notice of appeal states that it is based upon such grounds. [Citations.]" (People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 860, fn. omitted.)
Although defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause following entry of his no contest plea, section 1237.5, subdivision (a), still limits the issues cognizable in this appeal to those that raise "reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings" resulting in the plea. (See also People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895; People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 955, 873 P.2d 1246.) " "Obtaining a certificate of probable cause . . . does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty." [Citation.] Under section 1237.5, only "constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings," survive a guilty plea. [Citation.]" (People v. Hunter, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at pp. 41-42.)
Defendants plea prohibits him from raising any issues "going to the determination of guilt or innocence." (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1178, 899 P.2d 896; see also People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63, 92 Cal. Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308; People v. Meyer (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 1150, 1157, 228 Cal. Rptr. 635.) " A guilty plea . . . concedes that the prosecution possesses legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a plea of guilty waives any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility, and this is true whether or not the subsequent claim of evidentiary error is founded on constitutional violations. " (People v. Robinson , supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 369, quoting from People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 116, 125, 214 Cal. Rptr. 572.) " In other words, by pleading guilty the defendant admits that he did that which he is accused of doing and he thereby obviates the procedural necessity of establishing that he committed the crime charged. In short, a guilty plea "admits all matters essential to the conviction." [Citation.] A defendant thereafter 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." [Citations.]" (People v. Robinson,supra , 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 369.)
Since defendants appeal attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, the appeal is not cognizable. That defendant sometimes frames the issue under the guise of statutory construction does not change that his no contest plea establishes his guilt.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Elia, J. and Bamattre-Manoukian, J. --------------- Notes: Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.