California Court of Appeal May 23, 2025 No. E084593Unpublished
Filed 5/23/25 P. v. Corrales CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084593
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2300064)
NELSON DANIEL CORRALES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Emma C. Smith, Judge.
Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Nelson Daniel Corrales appeals from the judgment entered after he pled guilty to
several violations of the Penal Code, including two counts of attempted murder. (Pen.
1
Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) The trial
court sentenced him to 19 years four months in state prison.
We appointed counsel to represent Corrales on appeal, and counsel filed an
opening brief that raised no issues and requested an independent review of the record
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967)
Because Corrales failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we lack
jurisdiction to consider any issues affecting the validity of the plea, and Corrales is
consequently not entitled to Wende review for such issues. But because a certificate of
probable cause is not required to challenge “[t]he sentence or other matters occurring
after the plea or admission that do not affect the validity of the plea or admission,”
Corrales is entitled to a Wende review regarding those matters. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b)(2); see also Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1088 [without a certificate of
probable cause, “a defendant may obtain review solely of so-called ‘noncertificate’
issues, that is, postplea questions not challenging his plea’s validity”].)
Limiting our review to the sentence and postplea matters that do not affect the
plea’s validity, we have reviewed the record and found no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to Corrales. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
442.) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
FIELDS Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review issues challenging the validity of the plea due to the defendant's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause, and finding no arguable error in the sentence or post-plea proceedings.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's Marsden motions.
Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant ineligible for mental health diversion.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review plea-related issues without a certificate of probable cause.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Corrales failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we lack jurisdiction to consider any issues affecting the validity of the plea”
“Limiting our review to the sentence and postplea matters that do not affect the plea’s validity, we have reviewed the record and found no arguable error”