People v. Linn CA3

Filed 12/17/24 P. v. Linn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099034

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62186726)

v.

WILLIAM ROBERT LINN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Robert Linn, Jr., pled no contest to numerous offenses in exchange for a stipulated prison term. He appeals without a certificate of probable cause, arguing the trial court erred in denying both his motion for pretrial mental health diversion and his motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Because the absence of a certificate of probable cause forecloses both claims, we dismiss the appeal.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2023, the People filed an amended information charging defendant with stalking, three counts of criminal threats, vandalism, possession for sale of a controlled substance, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, receipt of a stolen vehicle, child endangerment, identity theft, eavesdropping, and invasion of privacy by concealed camera. The People also alleged numerous prior convictions, aggravating circumstances, and two prior strikes. During the proceedings, defendant moved for pretrial mental health diversion and filed a Romero motion asking the trial court to dismiss his prior strikes. The court denied both motions. Defendant ultimately pled no contest to child endangerment, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, stalking, two counts of criminal threats, eavesdropping, vandalism, and identity theft. Defendant also admitted certain prior convictions, several aggravating circumstances, and a prior strike. As part of the plea agreement, defendant stipulated to an aggregate sentence of 22 years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced defendant to that stipulated term. Defendant timely appealed. He did not request a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mental health diversion and his Romero motion. The People respond that these claims are barred on appeal because defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. The People are correct. In general, a defendant who has pled guilty or no contest may not appeal the judgment of conviction without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.) In