People v. Draughon, Cr. 19267
| Decision Date | 06 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 19267 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ruth DRAUGHON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, David R. Lipson, Deputy Public Defender, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Eric Collins, Dane R. Gillette, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Ruth Draughon appeals from a suspended judgment which was imposed after she pleaded guilty to forgery and uttering (Pen.Code, § 470) and grand theft (Pen.Code, § 487). The pleas were entered pursuant to a bargain which called for dismissal of certain other counts and preservation for appellate review of a speedy trial point that had been the basis for an unsuccessful motion for dismissal of the action. The other counts were accordingly dismissed and the court issued a certification of probable cause for appeal (Pen.Code, § 1237.5).
Penal Code section 1237.5 precludes a defendant from taking an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty unless the defendant files with the trial court a written statement "showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings" and the court issues a certificate of probable cause for the appeal. Here the trial court did issue a certificate of probable cause. Thus the question is presented whether appellant's showing in support of the certificate amounted to "constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings." This limit on the taking of an appeal is jurisdictional (People v. Hayton (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 413, 417, 156 Cal.Rptr. 426; cf. Code Civ.Proc., § 904.1), and thus operates even if a certificate of probable cause to appeal has been obtained.
The court in People v. Hayton, supra, held that the statutory right to be tried within 60 days after the filing of an indictment (Pen. Code, § 1382), as distinguished from the constitutional speedy trial right guaranteed by article I, section 15, of the California Constitution, does not go to the legality of the proceedings within the meaning of section 1237.5. Appellant contends that Hayton was decided incorrectly. We reject that contention (see People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 566, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, narrowing but giving continued effect to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Egbert
...324 [constitutional]; People v. Stittsworth (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 837, 841, 267 Cal.Rptr. 280 [statutory]; People v. Draughon (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 471, 473-474, 164 Cal.Rptr. 440 [statutory]; People v. Lee (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 715, 717, 161 Cal.Rptr. 162 [constitutional]; People v. Hayton......
-
Avila v. Municipal Court
...is not cognizable on appeal from a felony conviction following a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (E.g., People v. Draughon (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 471, 473-474, 164 Cal.Rptr. 440; People v. Lee (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 715, 717-718, 161 Cal.Rptr. 162; People v. Hayton (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 413......
-
People v. Sanders, B225024.
...be cognizable on an appeal. ( Id. at p. 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872 [applying Pen.Code, § 1237.5]; People v. Draughon (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 471, 164 Cal.Rptr. 440 [guilty plea vacated because premised on assurance of preservation on appeal of speedy trial issue].) Thus, we consider......
-
People v. Sanders
...thus be cognizable on an appeal. ( Id. at p. 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872 [applying Pen.Code, § 1237.5]; People v. Draughon (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 471, 164 Cal.Rptr. 440 [guilty plea vacated because premised on assurance of preservation on appeal of speedy trial issue].) Thus, we con......