People v. Sandoval CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Aug 10, 2015 No. D067344Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to raise any arguable appellate issues and that her challenges to the validity of her plea and sentence were not cognizable on appeal due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause.

Issues

Whether the defendant's guilty plea and waiver of appeal were valid.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a certificate of probable cause.
Whether the conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
Whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Without a certificate of probable cause, Sandoval cannot contest the validity of her plea; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or issues relating to matters arising after”

“Denial of a certificate of probable cause is reviewable only by timely petition for a writ of mandate.”

“Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.”

Filed 8/10/15 P. v. Sandoval CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D067344

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS268111)

ALICIA SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.

Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Alicia Sandoval pleaded guilty to burglary. The parties stipulated that the

value of the property was over $950. The parties agreed that Sandoval would be

screened for the drug court program. If Sandoval was not accepted into the

program, she would be placed on probation and ordered to serve 365 days in

custody in a residential treatment program. As part of her guilty plea, Sandoval

waived issues relating to her stipulated sentence and any strike priors.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, the trial court suspended

imposition of sentence and placed Sandoval on probation with a condition that she

People v. Sandoval CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D067344

ALICIA SANDOVAL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

MCINTYRE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

AI Brief