People v. Bonwit

Decision Date25 October 1985
Citation173 Cal.App.3d 828,219 Cal.Rptr. 297
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Ford BONWIT, Defendant and Appellant. G001367.
Michael T. Kenney and Albert A. Newton, Santa Ana, for defendant and appellant
OPINION

WALLIN, Associate Justice.

John Ford Bonwit pleaded guilty to a single count of selling cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) He obtained a certificate of probable cause to appeal the trial court's denial of his pretrial Hitch motion 1 seeking dismissal for a claimed destruction of material evidence. The trial court agreed evidence had been destroyed, but refused to dismiss the information and instead imposed a lesser sanction--suppression. Although he thereafter pleaded guilty, Bonwit purports to appeal the refusal to dismiss. Ironically, we would find the sanction imposed was appropriate, but are compelled to conclude the issue is not appealable following a guilty plea. In this case, however, the plea was improperly induced by the trial court's promise to issue a certificate of probable cause. Accordingly, Bonwit's request for an opportunity to withdraw his plea is granted.

I

A professional informant, Richard Wilder, arranged an eight-ounce purchase of cocaine from Bonwit. Bonwit and Steven Blaylock were arrested when they arrived to consummate the deal with undercover police officers. At the preliminary hearing, Wilder testified he initiated and recorded a number of telephone calls to Bonwit in setting up the buy. The defense made a formal motion for discovery of those tapes. In response, Wilder recanted his earlier testimony and denied recording any of his phone calls to Bonwit.

Bonwit sought dismissal pursuant to People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d 641, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361, arguing tapes had been made and intentionally destroyed, depriving him of the opportunity to prove Wilder had entrapped him into making the sale. At the hearing on that motion, Wilder testified he had not recorded any of the calls to Bonwit. He was effectively impeached by his roommate, who was present when Wilder recorded his conversations with Bonwit, and in fact listened to at least some of the tape recordings. The court determined the tapes had existed and had been destroyed. Nevertheless, the court found dismissal an inappropriate remedy and imposed a lesser sanction, the exclusion of Wilder's testimony from the trial.

Bonwit unsuccessfully sought pretrial writ relief from this court. Despite his claim dismissal was the only appropriate remedy for the intentional destruction of material evidence, Bonwit entered a plea of guilty. He did condition his plea on an understanding the court would issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen.Code, § 1237.5) so he could pursue the issue on appeal.

II

A certificate of probable cause does not necessarily make an otherwise nonappealable order, appealable. (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9, 136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028; People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872.) "Other than search and seizure issues which are specifically made reviewable by [Penal Code] section 1538.5, subdivision (m), all errors arising prior to entry of a guilty plea are waived, except those which question the jurisdiction or legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea. [Citation.] ... Obtaining a certificate of probable cause does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty. [Citation.] ... [Penal Code] section 1237.5 does not affect the grounds upon which appeal may be taken following a guilty plea; it merely establishes a procedure for screening out frivolous claims among these issues which have not been waived. [Citations.]" (People v. Kaanehe, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 9, 136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028.)

Three cases discuss the appealability of a Hitch motion following a guilty plea. People v. Galan (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 786, 209 Cal.Rptr. 837 and People v. Ahern (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 27, 204 Cal.Rptr. 11 both held a guilty plea waives any appellate review of the Hitch issue. People v. Aguilar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 221, 211 Cal.Rptr. 333, reached the opposite result. While we agree with Galan and Ahern, none of these three cases give a complete answer to the question posed here.

Both Galan and Aguilar involve Hitch issues relating to evidence on a search and seizure question. Galan oversimplifies the issue. Galan notes only search and seizure issues are cognizable on appeal following guilty pleas, leading to the conclusion Hitch motions are not preserved because they involve due process claims. Ahern called his Hitch motion a motion to suppress evidence and sought to appeal without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. The court held the issue was not cognizable on appeal. Aguilar reached a different result on a similar issue and concluded a Hitch violation could be raised as an appealable search and seizure question under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m). Bonwit's Hitch motion is distinct because it is independent of any search and seizure claim.

Bonwit contends the Hitch motion should be appealable because a plea of guilty is not inconsistent with entrapment, therefore his plea did not waive the issue he seeks to contest. An entrapment defense presumes guilt, but excuses the perpetrator's conduct as a matter of public policy, concluding overzealous law enforcement conduct which induces the commission of a crime is a greater societal wrong. (See Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners (1973) 9 Cal.3d 356, 363-364, 107 Cal.Rptr. 473, 508 P.2d 1121.) Simply stated, how is the guilty plea a waiver of the issue if a guilty plea is not inconsistent with the defense?

A guilty plea is more than an admission of guilt; it is also a waiver of affirmative defenses. Notwithstanding the destruction of evidence material to Bonwit's entrapment defense, his "guilty plea operated to remove such issues from consideration as a plea of guilty admits all matters essential to the conviction. [Citation.]" (People v. DeVaughn, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 895, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872.) That he was not entrapped was "essential to the conviction." The guilty plea implied an admission he was not entrapped. Thus, any claim he was unable to prove entrapment because of the destruction of evidence was waived by the plea.

Our conclusion Bonwit waived the entrapment issue a fortiori means he waived the Hitch issue. This conclusion is consistent with the principle that a guilty plea does not waive errors based on "constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings; ..." (Pen.Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a); People v. DeVaughn, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872.) A Hitch motion seeking sanctions for the destruction of evidence relating to an affirmative defense does not fit any of these exceptions.

A Hitch motion is a hybrid creature: a discovery motion and a motion for sanctions if discovery cannot be provided. (See People...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Cowan v. Superior Court, S052051
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 9, 1996
    ......Serv. 8849, . 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,675 . Gerald Thomas COWAN, Petitioner, . v. . The SUPERIOR COURT of Kern County, Respondent; . The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. . No. S052051. . Supreme Court of California. . Dec. 9, 1996. . Page 459 .         [14 Cal.4th 369] [926 P.2d ... (See, e.g., People v. McNabb (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 462, 471, 279 Cal.Rptr. 11; People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, 832, 219 Cal.Rptr. 297.) The facts of this case do directly afford us an opportunity to sanction a criminal defendant's ......
  • People v. Avalos, G016193
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 1996
    ...... (People v. Wakefield, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at pp. 69-71, 239 Cal.Rptr. 277; People v. Halstead (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 772, 778-782, 221 Cal.Rptr. 71; People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, 831-832, 219 Cal.Rptr. 297; People v. Galan (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 786, 796, 209 Cal.Rptr. 837; People v. Ahern (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 27, 32, 204 Cal.Rptr. 11.) We find the reasoning of these cases more persuasive. . 2. The Detention and Search of the Truck . ......
  • People v. Hobbs
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1991
    ...... (People v. Devaughn, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872; People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, 831, 219 Cal.Rptr. 297.) . Penal Code section 1237.5 now provides in pertinent part that "[n]o appeal shall be taken by a defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of .. nolo contendere .. except where the defendant has filed as part of the notice of appeal a ......
  • People v. Truman, B049044
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1992
    ...... (See People v. Padfield (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 218, 227, 185 Cal.Rptr. 903; People v. Barkins (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 30, 33, 145 Cal.Rptr. 926.) Therefore, appellant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea if he wishes to do so. As the court in People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, 833, 219 Cal.Rptr. 297, explained: "The [trial] court expressly stated one of the promises or representations made to [defendant] inducing his guilty plea was the court's own promise to issue a certificate of probable cause '[i]n order to protect the defendant's rights ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...after a guilty plea [ People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67; People v. Ahern (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 27; People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828; People v. McNabb (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 462; People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569], and filing such an appeal could even result in ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.App.4th 313, §§9:05, 9:93.3, 9:93.5 People v. Bonnetta (2009) 46 Cal.4th 143, §9:29 People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, §5:112.7 People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, §9:91.15 People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 1284, 1313, §6:23 People v. Borlik (2007)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT