People v. Belyew CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 28, 2022 No. C094617Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable error in the record and concluding that the defendant's claims were either forfeited for lack of a certificate of probable cause, forfeited for failure to raise them in the trial court, or required a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Issues

Whether the defendant's claims regarding her plea and mental health diversion are reviewable without a certificate of probable cause.
Whether the defendant's sentencing and custody credit claims were forfeited by failure to raise them in the trial court.
Whether claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on matters outside the record are cognizable on direct appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To the extent defendant’s claims assert errors arising prior to the plea, they attack the validity of her plea and her failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause forfeits the issues for appellate review.”

“Further, defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance and other challenges based on matters outside the record must be raised by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not by direct appeal.”

Filed 6/28/22 P. v. Belyew CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094617

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CF02211)

LISA MARIE BELYEW,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Lisa Marie Belyew asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant subsequently filed a supplemental brief contending that the imposition of sentence for her prior strike offense pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.121 was unconstitutional and raising issues relating to the validity of her plea and the judgment. After reviewing the record and defendant’s supplemental

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

arguments, we have found no merit in defendant’s contentions and no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We will affirm the judgment. I While defendant was incarcerated in the Butte County Jail, she threw a milk carton containing urine and fecal matter at a deputy sheriff. Defendant pleaded no contest to gassing and the parties stipulated to a four-year sentence to be served concurrent with the sentence defendant was serving in Colusa County Superior Court case No. 16CF06270 (No. 6270). Defendant also agreed to withdraw her request for pretrial mental health diversion and not seek mental health diversion in case No. 6270. The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison in accordance with the plea agreement. There were no custody credits because defendant was already in custody in case No. 6270 and this sentence was to run concurrent with her sentence. Defendant was advised and agreed that she would not receive custody credits in this matter in her plea agreement. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a conviction assessment of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373), a court operations assessment of $40 (§ 1465.8), and a restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), with an additional $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45). During the sentencing hearing, defendant confirmed she withdrew her request for mental health diversion in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing (1) remand is required to permit the trial court to determine whether she is eligible for pretrial mental health diversion, (2) her counsel was ineffective in negotiating her plea, (3) her counsel should have argued the

People v. Belyew CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C094617

LISA MARIE BELYEW,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief