People v. Wakefield
Decision Date | 17 August 1987 |
Citation | 239 Cal.Rptr. 277,194 Cal.App.3d 67 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Johnnie R. WAKEFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. A034628. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Donna B. Chew, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Joan Isserlis, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Defendant Johnnie R. Wakefield (Wakefield ) was charged by information, following his preliminary examination before a magistrate, with second degree burglary, and that he had four times been convicted of unrelated felonies (three for burglary and one for grand theft) for which he had served prison terms. In the superior court he made a Hitch (People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361) motion which was denied. As part of a plea bargain he thereupon pleaded guilty to second degree burglary and admitted one prior felony conviction and prison term. Having been unable to obtain a certificate of probable cause, he nonetheless appeals from the judgment which was entered on his guilty plea and admission.
We shall dismiss the appeal for the reasons we now state.
We consider the appealability of the judgment from which Wakefield purports to appeal.
Hitch (12 Cal.3d at 645, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361) reiterated the rule that "the intentional suppression of material evidence favorable to a defendant, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, is a violation of due process" as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
But answering the complaint of an appealing defendant who claimed that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated by the superior court's Penal Code section 1538.5 ruling, the high court said that: (People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 885, 206 Cal.Rptr. 114, 686 P.2d 634; and to the same effect see People v. Superior Court (Zolnay) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 733, 125 Cal.Rptr. 798, 542 P.2d 1390, People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 793, 108 Cal.Rptr. 852, 511 P.2d 1204; People v. Superior Court (Smith) (1969) 70 Cal.2d 123, 128, 74 Cal.Rptr. 294, 449 P.2d 230.)
We state the uncontroverted factual-procedural context of the case as material to the appeal.
A San Francisco restaurant had been burglarized and it was reported to the police. A police criminologist found and "lifted" from the restaurant's cash register, a latent fingerprint of Wakefield's finger. Its appearance there was unexplained by the defense. The fingerprint was the subject of Wakefield's Hitch motion. The cash register, or the surface from which the fingerprint had been lifted, had not been seized from its owner and preserved by the police.
No objection had been made by Wakefield to the fingerprint evidence at his preliminary examination. It was not until just before his case was to be tried in the superior court that his attorney for the first time moved, under Penal Code section 1538.5, "that the case be dismissed, that the fingerprint evidence be suppressed, or that the jury be given an instruction with respect to the fingerprint evidence favorable to [Wakefield ]." In support of his motion Wakefield produced a "criminalist" witness who testified that the People's fingerprint evidence may have been forged, i.e., that the fingerprint "lift"may have been taken from some source other than the cash register of the burglary victim.
Wakefield's Hitch motion was denied by the superior court. He thereupon entered into the above-noted plea bargain, and pleaded guilty. Judgment was entered, under which he was sentenced to the upper term for second degree burglary with a one-year enhancement.
This appeal was thereupon taken from the judgment.
The Hitch motion patently concerned the issue of Wakefield's guilt or innocence. "Fingerprint evidence is the strongest evidence of identity, and is ordinarily sufficient alone to identify the defendant." (People v. Gardner (1969) 71 Cal.2d 843, 849, 79 Cal.Rptr. 743, 457 P.2d 575.)
It has long been the rule that where an issue relates solely to the defendant's guilt or innocence, such an issue is removed by a guilty plea. And: "A judgment entered upon a plea of guilty is not appealable on the merits, and irregularities not going to jurisdiction or to the legality of the proceedings will not be reviewed...." (People v. Howard (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 373, 376, 127 Cal.Rptr. 557.)
People v. Halstead (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 772, 777, 778, 221 Cal.Rptr. 71: ...
People v. Ahern (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 27, 32-33, 204 Cal.Rptr. 11: "... ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Avalos
...Amendments. (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 488-491, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2533-2535, 81 L.Ed.2d 413; People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 68-69, 239 Cal.Rptr. 277.) Motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 are restricted to Fourth Amendment issues. (Peo......
-
People v. Whitfield
...that claim, to the extent it is viewed as being raised under section 1538.5, is not reviewable on appeal. (People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 69, 239 Cal.Rptr. 277.) There is, of course, a means other than section 1538.5 for raising the claim that statements obtained in violation......
-
People v. Spiers, E042417 (Cal. App. 7/16/2007), E042417
...to the procedure in establishing guilt are not cognizable on appeal following a change of plea. (DeVaughn, at p. 896; People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 69-71.) The reason for the rule is that either plea "admits all matters essential to the conviction." (DeVaughn, at p. 895; see......
-
People v. Williams
...and irregularities not going to jurisdiction or to the legality of the proceedings will not be reviewed.' " (People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 70, 239 Cal.Rptr. 277, quoting People v. Howard (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 373, 376, 127 Cal.Rptr. Citing In re Crumpton (1973) 9 Cal.3d 463, ......
-
Table of cases
...(1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 113, §4:30 People v. Wagner (2009) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 850, §6:21.5.1 People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, §5:112.7 People v. Waldie (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 358, §9:91.3 People v. Walker (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1615, §9:86.3 People v. Walker (2001......
-
Discovery
...motions made under Hitch , and presumably Trombetta/ Youngblood , are not appealable 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......