People v. Jones

Decision Date10 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. S041312,S041312
Citation43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464,898 P.2d 910,10 Cal.4th 1102
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 898 P.2d 910, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6354, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,815 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wendale Levette JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

Katrin B. Reimuller and J. Courtney Shevelson, under appointments by the Supreme Court, Carmel, for defendant and appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald A. Bass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald E. Niver, Stan M. Helfman and Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.

WERDEGAR, Justice.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 31(d), 1 an appeal taken from a conviction obtained by plea of guilty or nolo contendere is "operative" without issuance of a certificate of probable cause (Pen.Code, § 1237.5) 2 only if the notice of appeal states the appeal is based on either of two broad categories of grounds not requiring a certificate: those involving post-plea proceedings and not challenging the validity of the plea, or those involving the validity of a search or seizure previously challenged under section 1538.5 (sometimes collectively referred to here as "noncertificate" grounds). The question presented here is whether, in such an appeal, rule 31(d) restricts the cognizable issues to the particular noncertificate grounds specified in the notice of appeal.

After examining the language and history of rule 31(d), we conclude the rule does not govern the cognizability of noncertificate issues, but, rather, determines only when a noncertificate appeal may proceed. Where, as here, an appellant has in fact complied with rule 31(d) in his notice of appeal, the

[898 P.2d 912] rule does not restrict the cognizability on appeal of additional, unspecified noncertificate issues or categories of issues.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by information with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351.5), transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and driving with a suspended license (Veh.Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). After the superior court denied his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5, defendant entered pleas of guilty on all counts. The court granted probation, imposing conditions including payment of various fees.

The notice of appeal stated defendant appealed "based upon the grounds that the Court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and/or 1539." No certificate of probable cause was sought or filed.

In his opening brief in the Court of Appeal, defendant did contend the motion to suppress should have been granted. In addition, however, he claimed "[t]he trial court improperly imposed fees as conditions of probation by failing to make a determination of appellant's ability to pay or to pronounce them in the oral judgment."

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held the motion to suppress was properly denied. The court declined to reach the probation condition issues, holding defendant had failed to comply with rule 31(d) by specifying those issues in his notice of appeal and that noncompliance with the rule precluded consideration of the issues on appeal. We granted review on the limited issue of "whether appellant's claims regarding conditions of probation are cognizable on appeal in view of California Rules of Court, rule 31(d), and the contents of his notice of appeal."

I

Section 1237.5 provides "[n]o appeal shall be taken" from a judgment of conviction obtained by plea of guilty or nolo contendere unless the defendant has filed a written statement of cognizable grounds for the appeal--grounds "going to the legality of the proceedings"--and the trial court has certified the existence of probable cause for appeal. Despite the statute's broad language, we have held two types of issues may be raised in a guilty plea appeal without issuance of a certificate: issues relating to the validity of a search or seizure, for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m) (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8, 136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 600-601, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409); and issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 61, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308; People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574-576, 58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881).

Rule 31(d), first paragraph, implements section 1237.5's certificate requirement in those cases where a certificate is needed. The first paragraph limits the time for the defendant to file the required statement of grounds, provides the statement may serve as the notice of appeal, and states the appeal "shall not be operative" unless the trial court executes and files the certificate of probable cause.

Rule 31(d), second paragraph, implements our holdings that appeals raising solely search and seizure or post-plea punishment issues may proceed without issuance of a certificate. In its entirety, that paragraph provides: "If the appeal from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is based solely upon grounds (1) occurring after entry of the plea which do not challenge its validity or (2) involving a search or seizure, the validity of which was contested pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, the provisions of section 1237.5 of the Penal Code requiring a statement by the defendant and a certificate of probable cause by the trial court are inapplicable, but the appeal shall not be operative unless the notice of appeal states that it is based upon such grounds."

A summary of the rule's history aids in its interpretation. Rule 31(d) was added in 1965, the same year section 1237.5 was originally In 1967 we decided People v. Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d 571, 58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881, holding that appeals raising post-plea punishment issues were not subject to section 1237.5's certificate requirement. In Davis v. Superior Court (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 707, 77 Cal.Rptr. 779, then appellate court Justice Kaus noted that rule 31(d) and Ward together "ha[ve] created a dilemma for court clerks." (Id. at p. 709, 77 Cal.Rptr. 779.) "Since post-plea error can occur in every case and since, absent the restrictions of section 1237.5 and rule 31(d), the clerk must automatically prepare a record after a notice of appeal is filed (Cal.Rules of Court, rules 33-35), it follows from People v. Ward that he may not refuse to do so simply because there has been such a plea. On the other hand rule 31(d) tells him that such an appeal shall not be operative unless the statement and certificate of probable cause required by section 1237.5 are filed within certain time limits set forth in the rule." (Ibid.)

[898 P.2d 913] enacted. As originally adopted, the rule included only the provisions implementing section 1237.5, provisions now contained, as amended, in the rule's first paragraph. Rule 31(d) as adopted thus provided that an appeal from a guilty plea was not operative unless the trial court had issued a certificate of probable cause. (See Historical Note, 23 West's Ann.Cal.Codes, pt. 2 (1981 ed.) Cal.Rules of Court, rule 31, p. 278.)

To solve the "practical problems" noted in Davis, the second paragraph of rule 31(d) was added, effective January 1, 1970. (People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 64, fn. 5, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308.) As originally adopted, the second paragraph applied to appeals based solely on "grounds alleged to have occurred after entry" of the plea and provided the appeal was not operative "unless the notice of appeal states that it is based upon such grounds." (People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 64, fn. 5, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308.) In 1972, the paragraph was amended to substantially its present form, apparently in response to our holdings in People v. West, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pages 600-601, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409 (certificate not required for appeal of denial of suppression motion) and People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at pages 62-64, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308 (certificate required for challenge to denial of motion to withdraw plea). (See Historical Note, 23 West's Ann.Cal.Codes, pt. 1, supra, Cal.Rules of Court, rule 31, p. 278.)

II

Turning to the case under review, we note that although defendant's conviction rests on his plea of guilty, his appeal is authorized by section 1237, which provides, in relevant part, "[a]n appeal may be taken by the defendant: [p] (a) From a final judgment of conviction except as provided in Section 1237.5." Section 1237.5 creates no bar where, as here, the issues raised are of the two types to which that statute does not apply. (People v. Kaanehe, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 8, 136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028; People v. Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 574-576, 58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881.)

Nor does rule 31(d) render the appeal in this case inoperative. The grounds stated in defendant's notice of appeal "involv[ed] a search or seizure, the validity of which was contested pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code...." (Rule 31(d), 2d par.) Under the rule, as under our holdings, no certificate of probable cause was required, and the appeal was therefore operative.

This case thus does not present any question as to the effects of noncompliance with rule 31(d). 3 Where a criminal appellant has not complied with rule 31(d), either by obtaining a certificate (first paragraph) or by stating noncertificate grounds in the notice of appeal (second paragraph), the appeal is not "operative." No record should be prepared and no briefing undertaken for such an inoperative appeal, which is subject to dismissal on the respondent's or the court's own motion.

                [898 P.2d 914]  Even when the record has mistakenly
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 10 Julio 1997
    ...going to the legality of the proceedings.' " (171 Cal.App.3d at p. 126, 214 Cal.Rptr. 572; see also People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1109, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910.) After enumerating some of the issues waived by a guilty plea, we turned to those that survive a guilty plea an......
  • People v. Mendez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1999
    ...851, 913 P.2d 1061; People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 899 P.2d 896; People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1108, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910), and distinguished older ones (People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 151 Cal.Rptr. 625, 588 P.2d 765; In re Brown ......
  • People v. Avalos
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Julio 1996
    ...contrast, focus on the guilt or innocence of the accused which are waived by the entry of a guilty plea. (People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1109, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910; People v. Wakefield, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 70, 239 Cal.Rptr. Defendant argues People v. Aguilar (19......
  • People v. Panizzon
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 1996
    ...to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. (People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1106, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910, and cases cited; see generally, Cal.Criminal Law: Practice and Procedure (Cont.Ed.Bar, 2d ed.1994) §§ 39.4, Rule......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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