California Court of Appeal Nov 13, 2013 No. E058752Unpublished
Filed 11/13/13 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E058752
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF1102773 & INF1100890) IBRAHIM BROWN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan and John
D. Molloy, Judges. Affirmed.
Patrick DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 18, 2011, in case No. INF1100890 (case 1), a felony complaint charged
defendant and appellant Ibrahim Brown with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1);
receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a), count 2); and evading a peace
officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, count 3). The complaint also alleged two strike priors.
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. On September 10, 2013, defendant filed a two-page handwritten brief. In
his brief, it appears that defendant is arguing that double jeopardy applies to his
convictions; he is innocent; the district attorney was not honest with defendant regarding
presentence credits; and his guilty pleas were not made freely or voluntarily.
We first address defendant’s substantive arguments. We note that defendant failed
to obtain a certificate of probable cause. In People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781,
the court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to accept a no contest or guilty plea,
which involves a “legally impossible admission.” (Id. at pp. 783-786.) In that case, the
defendant pleaded no contest to attempting to file a forged instrument, specifically a
death certificate, in violation of Penal Code section 115. A death certificate is not an
“instrument” as defined in Penal Code section 115, however, thus rendering defendant’s
admission a legal impossibility. (People v. Soriano, at pp. 783-784.) However, the court
expressly stated that a defendant may raise substantive contentions on appeal from a
5
guilty plea only if the procedural requirements of Penal Code section 1237.5 pertaining to
certificates of probable cause are met. (People v. Soriano, at pp. 783-785 & fns. 1 & 2;
see also People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 [in the absence of a certificate of
probable cause, any issues pertaining to the validity of the plea are not cognizable on
appeal].) Here, defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Accordingly, the
issue is not cognizable on appeal.
Next, we address defendant’s argument that the district attorney lied to him about
awarding him “day-for-day credits” if he pled guilty. In this case, defendant received 516
days of presentence credit (344 actual days and 172 days of conduct credit) in both case 1
and case 2, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. At the sentencing hearing, the
trial court expressly stated: “So then is it stipulated on these two cases that the gentleman
has credit for time served of 344 actual days, 172 [days of Penal Code section] 4019
time?” Both the prosecutor and defense counsel stated, “Yes. So stipulated.” During
this exchange, defendant did not mention that the prosecutor had promised more
presentence credit. In fact, as the court pointed out, without the stipulation, defendant did
not qualify for any presentence credit: “The Court will accept that stipulation noting for
the record that the defendant, but for the stipulation, would be entitled to absolutely no
credits. He is a sentenced prisoner in another jurisdiction the entire time that he has been
in custody on these two cases. He has—he was transported from state prison. And so he
was not as a matter of law entitled to any credits on these two cases.” We, therefore,
reject defendant’s argument.
6
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
RICHLI J.
CODRINGTON J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, finding no arguable issues after an independent review of the record and concluding that the defendant's substantive challenges to his guilty pleas were not cognizable on appeal due to his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Issues
Whether the defendant's substantive challenges to his guilty pleas are cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause.
Whether the defendant was entitled to additional presentence credits beyond those stipulated in the plea agreement.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”