From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Raymond

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 28, 2011
No. E051241 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF138729, James T. Warren, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Sachi Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

McKinster Acting P.J.

I

INTRODUCTION

On June 11, 2010, an amended complaint charged defendant and appellant Leslie Earl Raymond with burglary of an occupied dwelling under Penal Code section 459 (count 1); burglary under section 459 (counts 2 through 5); forgery under section 470, subdivision (b) (counts 6 through 12); and forgery of an access card under section 484g, subdivision (a) (counts 13 through 23). In addition, the complaint alleged as to count 1 that the burglary occurred in an occupied residence within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

On the same day, defendant pled guilty to all counts, in exchange for dismissal of the allegation on under section 667.5, subdivision (c), and a stipulated sentence of 16 years. Thereafter, the trial court struck the section 667.5 allegation and sentenced defendant to 16 years.

On July 2, 2010, defendant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. On August 6, 2010, defense counsel also filed a notice of appeal. Neither defendant nor defense counsel requested a certificate of probable cause.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because defendant pled guilty to the complaint prior to the preliminary hearing, the facts are taken from an affidavit of Detective B. Wood.

Tamera Witt was employed by Corona Regional Hospital and was on duty the morning of June 22, 2007. Ms. Witt stated that she and her husband had been called that afternoon by their bank; the bank reported suspicious credit card transactions. She then realized that her wallet had been stolen from her purse at the hospital. Ms. Witt stated that several of the credit cards that were in the stolen wallet were subsequently used at numerous locations in Corona and Norco, including a CVS Store in Norco, Stater Brothers in Corona, Staples in Norco, and Target in Norco.

Ms. Witt’s husband, Ed Witt, obtained a photo of the person who used one of the credit cards at the CVS store in Norco. The photo of the suspect depicted a white male adult dressed like a priest. Ms. Witt showed her coworkers the photo; they stated that they saw the man at the hospital at the time of the theft.

Following an investigation, Detective Wood determined that defendant was the person who had used the stolen cards.

III

ANALYSIS

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. In his four-page, handwritten letter brief, defendant argues that he was denied his rights to due process because he was illegally extradited from Nevada to California.

“When a defendant pleads not guilty and is convicted as the result of a trial, in general any issue bearing on the determination of guilt and apparent from the record is cognizable on appeal. (See § 1237.) By contrast, when 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.’ [Citations.]” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649, fn. omitted.) 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.)

Section 1237.5 states as follows: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, 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 clerk of the court.”

Based on the above, defendant-without a certificate of probable cause-cannot challenge the validity of his guilty plea. As for defendant’s contention that he was denied due process because of the alleged unlawful extradition, defendant failed to raise this issue during the hearing wherein he pled guilty. A review of the transcript of the hearing reveals that defendant freely expressed himself during the hearing. For example, when the court asked: “Mr. Raymond, has anyone threatened to hurt you or any of your friends or family members to get you to plead guilty to these charges[, ]” defendant responded, “No. Being in this jail was enough.” Thereafter, when the court asked defendant, “And is it true that, in fact, you did commit the allegations that are set out in each of these counts[, ]” defendant responded, “Aside from some creative charge stacking, yes, Your Honor.” Notwithstanding his assertiveness, nowhere during the hearing did defendant or his counsel raise a due process issue because of defendant’s alleged illegal extradition from Nevada. His failure to object has forfeited the claim on appeal. (See People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869 [a claim based on a purported violation of the confrontation clause must be timely asserted at trial or it is waived on appeal].)

Moreover, we note that during this hearing, defendant waived his “constitutional rights.” The court summarized as follows: “I do find that you do understand the nature of the charges and the consequences of the Court accepting your pleas. I find that you do understand each of your legal and your Constitutional rights, and that you have freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived or given up each of your legal and your Constitutional rights.”

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Richli J., Miller J.


Summaries of

People v. Raymond

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 28, 2011
No. E051241 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Raymond

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LESLIE EARL RAYMOND, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Feb 28, 2011

Citations

No. E051241 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011)