People v. Panizzon

• Decision Date: 18 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. S046141,S046141
• Citation: 913 P.2d 1061,51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851,13 Cal.4th 68
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 913 P.2d 1061, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2733, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4526 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eric Alden PANIZZON, Defendant and Appellant

Page 851

51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851

13 Cal.4th 68, 913 P.2d 1061, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2733,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4526

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eric Alden PANIZZON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S046141.

Supreme Court of California

April 18, 1996.

Douglas C. Littlejohn and Dennis A. Fischer, Santa Monica, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Carl Schneider, Marc E. Turchin, Susan D. Martynec and Shawn A. McGahey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAXTER, Associate Justice.

Defendant Eric Panizzon pled no contest to various felony counts pursuant to a plea bargain that specifically provided for the imposition of certain prison time. After the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea bargain, defendant sought to appeal the sentence. The People requested the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: (1) defendant had failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause as required under Penal Code section 1237.5 ¹ and rule 31(d) of the California Rules of Court; ² and (2) defendant had waived the right to appeal his sentence as part of the plea bargain. The Court of Appeal denied the dismissal request, but rejected defendant's appeal on its merits.

As we shall explain, the Court of Appeal erred in denying the People's request for a dismissal. Although defendant purports not to contest the validity of the negotiated plea, he is in fact challenging the very sentence to which he agreed as part of the plea. Since the challenge attacks an integral part of the plea, it is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea, which requires compliance with the probable cause certificate requirements of section 1237.5 and rule 31(d). Because defendant failed to adhere to these requirements, we conclude the Court of Appeal should not have reached the merits of defendant's appeal. As an alternative but secondary ground for our ruling, we accept, for purposes of argument, defendant's contention that his challenge is an attack on the sentence and not the plea, and, even upon this basis, we find it is barred because the terms of the plea bargain prohibit him from attacking the sentence on appeal. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and remand the matter to that court with directions to enter a dismissal of the appeal.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FACTS

As part of a negotiated plea bargain, defendant agreed to enter a plea of no contest (nolo contendere) to one count of kidnapping for ransom (§ 209, subd. (a)), two counts of anal rape by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), one count of soliciting another to dissuade a witness from testifying or to suborn perjury (§ 653f), and to admit a weapons use allegation (§ 12022, subd. (a)). Also as part of the plea bargain, defendant agreed to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole, plus 12 years. He also acknowledged that a restitution fine of not less than $200 and not more than $10,000 would be imposed and that he waived the right to appeal the sentence. In exchange for the plea, the People agreed to dismiss one conspiracy count (§ 182), two counts of rape by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), six counts of sexual battery by restraint (§ 243.4, subd. (a)), and one count of residential burglary (§ 459). The trial court accepted defendant's plea on the specified counts and dismissed the others. Approximately one month later, in conformance with the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant to life with the possibility of parole, plus 12 years, and imposed restitution fines totaling $400.

Defendant subsequently filed a notice of appeal identifying the claim that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentences imposed upon his codefendants and thereby violative of the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. ³ The People responded by requesting dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5; rule 31(d)) and that defendant had waived the right to appeal. After denying the People's request, the Court of Appeal rejected defendant's appeal on the merits and affirmed the judgment. Both defendant and the People petitioned for review.

II. DISCUSSION

In this court, both sides complain of error by the Court of Appeal. The People, on the one hand, contend the court should not have disregarded defendant's failure to comply with section 1237.5 and rule 31(d) and his waiver of the right to appeal the sentence. Defendant, on the other hand, argues the court erroneously rejected the constitutional challenges to his sentence. We examine the People's claims of error first, as they are potentially dispositive.

As pertinent to this case, the rules governing a criminal defendant's right to appeal are set forth in section 1237.5 and rule 31(d).

Section 1237.5 provides in relevant part: "No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere ... except where both of the following are met: [p] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [p] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the county clerk." Notwithstanding the broad language of section 1237.5, it is settled that two types of issues may be raised in a guilty or nolo contendere plea appeal without issuance of a certificate: (1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) 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. 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, 42.7.)

Rule 31(d) has two paragraphs. As we recently explained, the first paragraph implements section 1237.5's certificate requirement by "limit[ing] the time for the defendant to file the required statement of grounds, provid[ing] the statement may serve as the notice of appeal, and stat[ing] the appeal 'shall not be operative' unless the trial court executes and files the certificate of probable cause." ⁴ (People v. Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1106, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910.) The second paragraph implements rules governing those appeals that are not subject to section 1237.5's certificate requirement, i.e., appeals raising solely search and seizure or post-plea issues. ⁵ While the two paragraphs of rule 31(d) set forth different procedures for making an appeal operative, a defendant cannot manipulate the rule to bypass the statutory certificate requirement. Consequently, "[a]lthough an appeal purporting to rest solely on noncertificate grounds may be operative under rule 31(d), [second paragraph,] and may therefore result in preparation of a record and briefing, section 1237.5 does not allow the reviewing court to hear the merits of issues going to the validity of the plea unless the defendant has obtained a certificate of probable cause, or has sought and obtained relief from default in the reviewing court." (People v. Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1112, fn. 5, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910.)

The purpose for requiring a certificate of probable cause is to discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas. (People v. Breckenridge (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1101, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 1; see also People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1171, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 779.) The objective is to promote judicial economy "by screening out wholly frivolous guilty [and nolo contendere] plea appeals before time and money is spent preparing the record and the briefs for consideration by the reviewing court." (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1179, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 899 P.2d 896; see People v. Ballard (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 982, 987-988, 220 Cal.Rptr. 323.)

It has long been established that issues going to the validity of a plea require compliance with section 1237.5. (People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574, 58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881 (Ward ).) Thus, for example, a certificate must be obtained when a defendant claims that a plea was induced by misrepresentations of a fundamental nature (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872) or that the plea was entered at a time when the defendant was mentally incompetent (People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 282, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228). Similarly, a certificate is required when a defendant claims that warnings regarding the effect of a guilty plea on the right to appeal were inadequate. (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8, 136 Cal.Rptr. 409, 559 P.2d 1028.)

In this case, defendant does not purport to challenge the validity of his no contest plea. Nonetheless, he seeks to appeal the constitutionality of the sentence to which he agreed as part of the negotiated plea bargain. Under these circumstances, do the requirements of section 1237.5 apply? ⁶

The following principles guide our analysis. In determining whether section 1237.5 applies to a challenge of a sentence imposed after a plea of guilty or no contest, courts must look to the substance of the appeal: "the crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging, not the time or manner in which the challenge is made." (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308.) Hence, the critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is ...