From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nieves

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 11, 2009
No. F056770 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE NIEVES, Defendant and Appellant. F056770 California Court of Appeal, Fifth District August 11, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. F06909749

MODIFICATION OF OPINION

Vartabedian, Acting Presiding Justice.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed in the instant case on July 31, 2009, be modified as follows:

1. The he second sentence in the fourth full paragraph on page 2, which begins with words, “Appellant has not received,” is deleted, and in place of that sentence is substituted the following:

Appellant, apparently in response to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing, submitted a letter in which he raises various claims which we discuss below.

2. The following paragraph is inserted on page 3, immediately below the centered heading, “DISCUSSION,” and immediately preceding the paragraph under that heading that begins, “Following independent review”:

Appellant argues, as best we can determine, as follows: (1) he was not guilty of the instant offense; (2) his plea was the product of misinformation provided by his trial counsel; and (3) the sentence imposed was unduly harsh. The first of these claims is precluded by appellant’s plea. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1177-1178 [plea of guilty precludes appellate determination of issues going to guilt or innocence].) The second is not properly before this court because, in effect, if not explicitly, it challenges the validity of the plea, and the court did not issue a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 [challenge to validity of plea foreclosed by absence of certificate of probable cause]; People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243 [claim of ineffective assistance occurring prior to plea went to validity of plea and therefore not cognizable on appeal in absence of compliance with certificate of probable cause requirements].) And, the third claim set forth above is without merit. (People v. Gimenez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [a court abuses its sentencing discretion “whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered”].)

This modification does not change the judgment.

WE CONCUR: Gomes, J., Dawson, J.


Summaries of

People v. Nieves

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 11, 2009
No. F056770 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Nieves

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE NIEVES, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 11, 2009

Citations

No. F056770 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2009)