People v. Hedrington CA5

California Court of Appeal Jan 3, 2024 No. F085738Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable error in the record and noting that the defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea was not cognizable due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause.

Issues

Whether the defendant's challenge to the validity of his guilty plea is cognizable without a certificate of probable cause.
Whether there is any arguable error in the record requiring a more favorable disposition for the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A trial court’s denial of an application for a certificate of probable cause must be reviewed by a petition for writ of mandate.”

“Hedrington has not petitioned for nor obtained such writ relief, and thus issues concerning the validity of his plea are not cognizable.”

“Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Hedrington.”

Filed 1/3/24 P. v. Hedrington 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085738 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR064476) v.

ESMOND BENITO HEDRINGTON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. D. Lynn Collet, Judge. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This appeal is from a final judgment following a guilty plea which disposed of all issues between the parties. (Pen. Code § 1237, subd. (a).)1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On February 28, 2020, a preliminary hearing was held in Department 23 of the Madera County Superior Court after which Hedrington was held to answer. On March 3, 2020, the District Attorney filed an information charging Hedrington with sale or transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 13379, subd. (a); count 1) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); count 2). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that Hedrington had suffered a prior conviction in 1984 that qualified as a strike with the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12. On July 22, 2022, Hedrington waived his constitutional rights, pled guilty to attempted possession for sale of a controlled substance (§ 664; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and admitted the strike allegation. He did so with the promise of a two-year prison sentence. On August 18, 2022, the superior court heard and denied Hedrington’s Marsden2 motion. The attorney appearing with him noted that he was not the attorney who appeared when Hedrington pled guilty. That attorney was absent due to a medical issue. Hedrington asserted that counsel had failed to file section 1538.5 and 1385 motions, as requested. Counsel believed that there was not a good faith basis for making a motion to suppress. In addition, Hedrington’s Romero3 motion was denied. The court denied the Marsden motion. Back in open court, Hedrington indicated that he wished to withdraw

People v. Hedrington CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief