People v. Lee

California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 1980 No. Crim. 18828Published

Before: Racanelli

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant cannot raise a speedy trial claim on appeal after a guilty plea, and a plea bargain conditioned on the right to appeal such a claim is procedurally defective, requiring the conviction to be reversed and the defendant permitted to withdraw the plea.

Issues

Whether a defendant may raise a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim on appeal following a plea of guilty.
Whether a plea bargain conditioned on the right to appeal a non-cognizable constitutional issue is valid.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“although the constitutional right to speedy trial is fundamental [citation], we conclude that a defendant may not raise the issue on appeal after he has pleaded guilty.”

“it was improper for the trial court to approve the negotiated plea bargain purporting to provide the otherwise illusory right of appeal.”

“The resulting failure to properly advise the defendant of the consequences of his conditional plea rendered the plea bargain itself procedurally defective.”

Opinion

RACANELLI, P. J.

On appeal from his conviction based upon a negotiated plea of guilty to crimes of robbery and aggravated assault,

[717]

defendant claims a denial of the right of speedy trial due to prearrest delay and entitlement to good-time /work-time credit for presentence confinement. Our determination of the former claim requires reversal.

No Cognizable Issue on Appeal

The sole substantive challenge on appeal following defendant’s plea of guilty and filing of certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) relates to a Sixth Amendment claim of error due to a post-complaint delay of 168 days in effecting defendant’s arrest. We believe the reasoning of a recent decision of this court involving a similar challenge is apposite herein. In

People

Hayton

(1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 413 [156 Cal.Rptr. 426] [hg. den. Aug. 22, 1979], a like claim of pretrial delay was analyzed as follows: “Issues cognizable on an appeal following a guilty plea are limited to issues based on ‘reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings’ resulting in the plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) The reason for this rule is that ‘a plea of guilty admits all matters essential to the conviction.’

(People

DeVaughn

(1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895 [135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872].) Obtaining a certificate of probable cause does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty.

(People

Kaanehe

(1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9 [136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028].) Therefore, section 1237.5 of the Penal Code does not expand the grounds upon which an appeal may be taken after a guilty plea, but ‘merely establishes a procedure for screening out frivolous claims among these issues which have not been waived.’

People v. Lee

AI Brief

RACANELLI, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief