Opinion
F075630
06-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN RAMON GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 13CM4106HTA)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Steven D. Barnes, Judge. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Juan Ramon Gonzalez pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)/count 2) and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)/count 3). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2013, at approximately 7:30 a.m., a farmworker found Jesus Reyes deceased in an orchard in Hanford. Reyes's body was badly burned and positioned face down, with the legs and hands "hogtied" behind Reyes's back. Duct tape was wrapped around Reyes's mouth down toward his neck. His right eye was swollen and bruised and his nose appeared to be distorted. An autopsy later determined that blunt force trauma was a contributing factor to Reyes's death and that Reyes had been injected with a potentially lethal amount of amphetamines that could also have contributed to his death.
On October 14, 2013, Kings County Detective Taylor Lopes went to a house in Raisin City, where Reyes had been living. Jose Ramirez came outside, met Lopes by the rear door of the residence, and immediately began telling him about the marijuana growing operation he had at the house. While Lopes spoke with Ramirez, two other men came out of the house but a third man, later identified as Gonzalez, remained in the house for over seven hours until a SWAT team entered the house and took him into custody. Afterwards, the SWAT team conducted a warrant search of the house during which they found several firearms and ammunition.
A black Lincoln that was parked at the house had two rear tires with a tread pattern that appeared to match tire impressions found at the scene where Reyes's body was found.
On October 22, 2013, a man visited Gonzalez at the jail. During their videotaped conversation, Gonzalez stated that he was living at the house on Oleander Street and helping Ramirez with the marijuana grow when Reyes was killed. Gonzalez also stated that a man named Mark was present when Reyes was killed, but that Mark did not do anything. According to Gonzalez, Ramirez was acting crazy that day, it was Ramirez's idea to assault Reyes, and Ramirez tied Reyes up and injected him with narcotics. Gonzalez admitted being present during the killing but claimed he only helped Ramirez and that Ramirez "did everything," including purchasing gasoline.
Surveillance video from a gas station north of Raisin City showed that on October 6, 2013, at approximately 3:20 a.m., a black Lincoln stopped there and Ramirez got out of the rear passenger seat and paid for $3 of gas.
On February 2, 2017, the Kings County District Attorney filed a third amended information that charged Gonzalez with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)/count 1), voluntary manslaughter and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Gonzalez then pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault in exchange for a stipulated prison term of seven years and the dismissal of the remaining count.
On March 21, 2017, after defense counsel advised the court that Gonzalez wanted to withdraw his plea, the court held a Marsden hearing and found no grounds to appoint substitute counsel. After the hearing, when the court inquired about Gonzalez's motion to withdraw his plea, defense counsel advised the court that he did not believe there were any grounds for filing such a motion. The court then sentenced Gonzalez to the stipulated term of seven years, the middle term of six years on his manslaughter conviction and a consecutive one-year term (one-third the middle term of three-years) on his assault conviction.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On May 11, 2007, defense counsel filed an appeal for Gonzalez based on the sentence and matters that occurred after Gonzalez entered his plea and he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause for Gonzalez.
On the form, defense counsel marked the box next to the following statement: "This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea." --------
Gonzalez's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a letter filed on December 13, 2017, Gonzalez complains about numerous alleged irregularities in the proceedings that preceded his plea in this matter. For example, Gonzalez contends he was arrested without probable cause and that during the preliminary hearing the prosecutor failed to present evidence of an alleged exculpatory statement by a codefendant. According to Gonzalez, these irregularities resulted in him not entering his plea intelligently or voluntarily and he asks to be allowed to withdraw his plea. He also contends defense counsel filed an appeal on Gonzalez's behalf without contacting him and that counsel erred in doing so because he checked the wrong box on the appeal form. Allegedly, Gonzalez had "written [his] own certificate of probable cause" and intended to file it but he received a letter informing him defense counsel had already filed an appeal on his behalf and that his appeal was limited to matters that did not affect the validity of his plea. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that none of the issues Gonzalez raises is cognizable on appeal.
"Section 1237.5 provides in relevant part: 'No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere ... except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The 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. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the county clerk.' Notwithstanding the broad language of section 1237.5, it is settled that two types of issues may be raised in a guilty or nolo contendere plea appeal without issuance of a certificate: (1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed." (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-75 (Panizzon).) "It has long been established that issues going to the validity of a plea require compliance with section 1237.5. [Citation.] Thus, for example, a certificate must be obtained when a defendant claims that a plea was induced by misrepresentations of a fundamental nature [citation] ...." (Id. at p. 76.)
Gonzalez's contention that he did not enter his plea intelligently or voluntarily raises an issue that goes to the validity of his plea. Thus, it is not cognizable on appeal because Gonzalez did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Additionally, except for Gonzalez's implicit contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in filing his appeal, the remaining issues Gonzalez raises are not cognizable on appeal because they do not involve search and seizure issues or issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to Gonzalez's plea. Further, Gonzalez's implicit contention that defense counsel provided ineffective representation by not contacting Gonzalez prior to filing an appeal on Gonzalez's behalf and by checking the wrong box on the appeal form is not cognizable on appeal because it relies on facts outside the record. (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 ["An appellate court's review is limited to consideration of the matters contained in the appellate record."].)
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.