Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary Paden, Judge, Super. Ct. No. VCF152109.
William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Gomes, J.
Appellant Gilbert Daniel Rodriguez was charged by information with having committed lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) As part of a negotiated plea, Rodriguez pled no contest to a reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5) pursuant to People v. West, on the condition he be admitted on probation and serve no more than ninety days in the county jail. At sentencing, the court denied Rodriguez’s request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor and placed him on felony probation for three years, on the condition he serve 90 days in local custody. Restitution fines of $500 were ordered pursuant to sections 1202.4 and 1202.44., and set a hearing on the subject of victim restitution for a later date. Rodriguez’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 600.
Rodriguez’s appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which adequately summarizes the facts and adequately cites to the record, which raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter dated July 16, 2007, this court invited Rodriguez to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal he may wish this court to consider. Rodriguez filed a document entitled “Appellant’s Supplemental Response to Wende Letter,” which consists of copies of his attorney’s opening Wende brief, as well as what appear to be copies of court documents, such as police reports and hearing transcripts, on which has been handwritten in various places factual discrepancies from those stated on the documents. We interpret these remarks as a challenge to the evidentiary support for his plea. Rodriguez’s brief also contains a handwritten page in which he asserts his attorney did not fully advise him of the consequences of his plea and was ineffective in advising him to agree to the negotiated plea. We will affirm.
FACTS
The 10-year-old victim was among seven children participating in a sleepover at Rodriguez’s home. The victim told police that in the early morning hours, she felt someone touching her on her genital area, through her clothing, but she was extremely sleepy and not sure what was going on, so she rolled on her side. A short time later, the victim felt someone lifting her skirt. She awoke and saw someone standing near her, who she believed was Rodriguez because he was the only adult male in the residence. The victim then saw Rodriguez walk into the kitchen and heard him getting ice from the refrigerator. A short time later she felt “extremely cold” pressure on her vaginal area. She woke up to the sound of someone rushing to the other side of the living room. The victim looked up and saw Rodriguez looking at her. She fell back asleep as she wanted to be left alone. A short time later, the victim woke a friend sleeping near her and contacted her parents by phone at approximately 2:24 a.m. Officers were dispatched and found Rodriguez in the backyard of the residence.
DISCUSSION
Rodriguez’s claim regarding sufficiency of the evidence fails because a guilty plea is, for most purposes, the legal equivalent of a jury’s guilty verdict. (People v. Valladoli (1996) 13 Cal.4th 590, 601.) A guilty plea serves as a stipulation that the People need not introduce proof to support the accusation. The plea ipso facto supplies both evidence and verdict and is deemed to constitute an admission of every element of the charged offense. (People v. Alfaro (1986) 42 Cal.3d 627, 636, overruled on another ground in People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343; People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 748.) Accordingly, a guilty plea waives any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility. This is true whether or not the subsequent claim of evidentiary error is found on constitutional violations. By pleading guilty, a defendant waives any right to question how evidence was obtained just as fully and effectively as he or she waives any right to have the conviction reviewed on the merits. In short, a guilty plea admits all matters essential to the conviction. (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125-126.)
A no contest plea has the same legal effect as a guilty plea. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 955.)
Furthermore, Rodriguez has failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. By challenging the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the entry of his plea, including his trial attorney’s alleged failures, Rodriguez is, in effect, challenging the validity of his plea. Without a certificate of probable cause, however, our review is limited to search and seizure or sentencing issues, neither of which he raises. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1088; 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, 244-245 [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].)
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.