People v. Page CA5

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 2016 No. F070174Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's appeal must be dismissed because he failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause as required by Penal Code section 1237.5 for appeals following a no-contest plea.

Issues

Whether a defendant who pleads no contest must obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge a sentence based on a subsequent change in law.
Whether the defendant's notice of appeal satisfied the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4) to bypass the certificate requirement.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with respondent that Page’s appeal is not authorized by section 1237.5 and dismiss the appeal.”

“Section 1237.5 precludes an appeal from the judgment entered after a guilty plea unless the defendant applies for, and the trial court grants the defendant, a certificate of probable cause.”

“Accordingly, we conclude that Page’s appeal is not operative and we dismiss the appeal.”

Filed 4/14/16 P. v. Page CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070174 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF156003A) v.

LUTHER PAGE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Steven M. Katz, Judge. Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

Appellant Luther Page pled no contest to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, §11351.5), and admitted allegations that he had two prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)‑(i)).1 On appeal, Page contends he is entitled to the benefit of a change in the law that reduces the punishment for possession for sale of cocaine base. We conclude that Page’s contention is not properly before the court and affirm the judgment. FACTS On June 28, 2014, Page was in possession of cocaine base for sale. On July 14, 2014, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Page with possession of a designated controlled substance (count 1/Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possession of cocaine base (count 2/Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (count 3/Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and having two convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law. On July 29, 2014, the district attorney amended the complaint to include count 4, which charged Page with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Page then pled no contest to count 4 and admitted the three strikes allegations in exchange for a stipulated prison term of six years, the mitigated term of three years doubled to six years because of Page’s prior strike convictions. On August 26, 2014, the court sentenced Page to a six-year prison term in accordance with his negotiated plea. On September 24, 2014, Page filed a timely handwritten appeal that stated:

People v. Page CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief