People v. Littlejohn-Zabel CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 2, 2014 No. F065616Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence and failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of his guilty plea. The court further held that no enforceable plea agreement containing a three-year sentencing cap existed at the time the defendant entered his plea.

Issues

Whether the defendant waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Whether the defendant's challenge to his sentence constitutes a challenge to the validity of his plea requiring a certificate of probable cause.
Whether an enforceable plea agreement with a three-year sentencing cap existed at the time of the defendant's plea.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We may not review an appellate challenge to the validity of a plea where the defendant does not obtain a certificate of probable cause.”

“Therefore, the absence of a certificate of probable cause precludes the instant appeal.”

Filed 6/2/14 P. v. Littlejohn-Zabel CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F065616

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF37707)

CHARLES G. LITTLEJOHN-ZABEL, OPINION JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. William G. Polley, Judge. Kelly Lynn Babineau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Leanne Le Mon and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., Sarkisian, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Appellant, Charles G. Littlejohn-Zabel, Jr. pleaded guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).1 The court imposed a prison term of six years. On appeal, appellant argues as follows: At the time he waived his right to a preliminary hearing, the prosecution promised him a three-year sentence “cap”; he detrimentally relied on this promise; and therefore he is entitled to specific performance of that promise, i.e., the imposition of a sentence of no more than three years. We dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by criminal complaint with a single count of violating section 288, subdivision (a). His preliminary hearing was set for March 7, 2012.2 At the outset of the proceeding on that day, the following exchange occurred: “MR. PRICE [defense counsel]: Today, we’re going to waive prelim, Your Honor. “THE COURT: Okay. Any promises, anything like that? “MR. PRICE: Three-year cap with a 288 (b)(1) [sic] examination.”3 Shortly thereafter, the court advised appellant, and appellant confirmed he understood, that he had a right to a preliminary hearing in which he could cross-examine

People v. Littlejohn-Zabel CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

CHARLES G. LITTLEJOHN-ZABEL, OPINION JR.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief