People v. Batiste CA1/4

Filed 5/20/21 P. v. Batiste CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160838 v. WALLACE BATISTE, (City & County San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 224334) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION The facts relevant to disposition of the present appeal are simply stated. Upon remand to the superior court following the reversal of his conviction, defendant Wallace Batiste pled guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) pursuant to a negotiated disposition under which the court promised to grant a certificate of probable cause that would enable him to challenge on appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the information for the asserted denial of his right to a speedy trial. Defendant was sentenced (to five years in prison, deemed served) and the court signed a certificate of probable cause. On appeal defendant contends that his guilty plea was improperly induced by the promise to issue a certificate of probable cause on what the parties now recognize is a nonappealable issue. (People v. Hernandez (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.) The Attorney General agrees and acknowledges that “the judgment should be reversed and the case should

1

be remanded to the superior court to permit [defendant] to move to withdraw his guilty plea.” Recognizing that the speedy trial issue is not appealable, defendant initially moved for summary reversal so that he could return to the superior court and move to withdraw his plea. In response to this court’s request for a response to the motion, the Attorney General responded that defendant was not entitled to summary reversal but that “[w]ith respect to the merits of appellant’s claim, respondent agrees that he will be entitled to relief on the merits when his appeal is decided.” Based on this response, a panel of this court issued the following order: “Respondent having been given the opportunity to respond to appellant’s motion for summary reversal in compliance with Government Code section 68081, and having acknowledged that the motion is well taken and should be granted, the motion is granted and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court to permit appellant to move to withdraw his guilty plea.” The Supreme Court then granted the People’s petition for review and transferred the case back to this court with directions to vacate that order “and consider whether the summary reversal procedure used is appropriate in light of California Constitution, article VI, sections 3 and 14, People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, Government Code section 68081, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a).” Having further considered this issue in light of the cited authorities, as directed, we conclude once again that having given the Attorney General the opportunity to respond to defendant’s motion and the Attorney General having responded that defendant was entitled to have the matter remanded to the superior court, nothing in any of the cited materials precluded summary disposition to accomplish what both parties agreed should occur.