IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S182042
v.
Ct.App. 3 C060532
WILLIAM FREDERICK MAULTSBY,
Yolo County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. 08868
____________________________________)
Under Penal Code1 section 1237.5, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo
contendere generally may not appeal his felony conviction without obtaining a
certificate of probable cause. In this case, defendant was convicted by a jury of a
petty theft offense, but admitted a prior felony conviction. He appealed only his
admission of the prior conviction. We must determine whether section 1237.5
applies under these circumstances. Relying on its recent decision in People v.
Fulton (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1237 (Fulton), the Court of Appeal here
concluded that ― ‗section 1237.5 applies to an enhancement allegation to which a
defendant has entered a plea.‘ ‖
1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
noted.
1
Based on the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the provision is
inapplicable here. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and also
disapprove People v. Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1230.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2008, a jury convicted defendant William Frederick Maultsby
of petty theft. Before trial, defendant admitted a prior felony conviction for
robbery in 1991— considered a strike under the Three Strikes law — and admitted
several prior convictions for theft. The trial court sentenced defendant to two
years eight months in state prison. Defendant timely appealed, contending he
admitted the prior strike without complete advisements. (See Boykin v. Alabama
(1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-244; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 863.) He did not
obtain a certificate of probable cause.
The Court of Appeal directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on
whether defendant needed a certificate of probable cause under Fulton, supra, 179
Cal.App.4th 1230. Consistent with Fulton, the Court of Appeal held that
defendant must comply with section 1237.5 to challenge his admission of an
enhancement allegation. It determined that defendant‘s claim was noncognizable
and dismissed his appeal.
Defendant petitioned for review.
DISCUSSION
In general, a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction,
unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.304(b) [hereafter rule 8.304(b)].) Section 1237.5, which is at issue
here, provides in full: ―No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment
of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of
probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following
are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement,
2
executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional,
jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b)
The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such
appeal with the clerk of the court.‖2 (Italics added.) The purpose of section
1237.5 is ―to weed out frivolous and vexatious appeals from pleas of guilty or no
contest, before clerical and judicial resources are wasted.‖ (People v. Buttram
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790; see Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1095 [§ 1237.5 ―is
procedural in nature‖].)
Defendant maintains that he was not required to obtain a certificate of
probable cause under section 1237.5 because he did not plead guilty or nolo
contendere to the current charge. Echoing the Court of Appeal‘s reasoning, the
People, however, contend that defendant‘s challenge to his admission of the prior
conviction is a challenge to the validity of a plea; therefore, he must obtain a
certificate of probable cause.
A. Statutory Interpretation
In interpreting a statute to ascertain the Legislature‘s intent, we give the
words their usual and ordinary meaning. The statute‘s plain language controls
unless its words are ambiguous. (People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104,
1138.) By its terms, section 1237.5 applies only to ―a judgment of conviction
upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an
2
A defendant who has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, however, need not
file a written statement or obtain a certificate of probable cause if the appeal is
based on the following grounds: ―(A) The denial of a motion to suppress evidence
under Penal Code section 1538.5; or [¶] (B) Grounds that arose after entry of the
plea and do not affect the plea‘s validity.‖ (Rule 8.304(b)(4); see also People v.
Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099 (Mendez).) Defendant here does not base
his appeal on either noncertificate ground.
3
admission of violation.‖ It makes no mention of admissions of prior conviction
allegations or other sentence enhancement allegations. Contrary to the People‘s
suggestion, the Legislature has distinguished between pleas, such as guilty, not
guilty, or nolo contendere (§ 1016), and admissions to sentencing allegations (§§
1025, 1158). Indeed, a sentence enhancement, such as a prior conviction or prison
term enhancement, is ―an additional term of imprisonment added to the base term‖
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.405(3)), which cannot be imposed without a
conviction for the substantive offense. (See People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th
126, 134.)
As noted above, section 1237.5 is an exception to section 1237, the general
statute governing appeals following final judgments of conviction. (See § 1237,
subd. (a) [defendant may appeal from final judgment of conviction ―except as
provided in . . . Section 1237.5‖].) The differences between appeals from
convictions resulting from not guilty pleas and ensuing trials (§ 1237), on the one
hand, and those following guilty or nolo contendere pleas (§ 1237.5), on the other,
―are reflected in distinct but analogous statutes and related rules of court defining
the procedure applicable to the taking of each type of appeal.‖ (In re Chavez
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649 (Chavez), italics added.) In that regard, we have
construed section 1237.5 narrowly, concluding that it does not apply to admissions
made in juvenile court because minors are not ―defendants‖; they do not ―plead
guilty‖ but admit allegations of a petition; and adjudications of juvenile
wrongdoing do not constitute ―criminal convictions.‖ (In re Joseph B. (1983) 34
Cal.3d 952, 955 [juvenile appeals governed by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800]; see
also People v. Wagoner (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 605, 609-610 [§ 1237.5 does not
apply to insanity pleas].)
4
Based on its plain language, we conclude that section 1237.5 does not apply
to an appeal where a defendant does not plead guilty or nolo contendere.3 Instead,
section 1237, subdivision (a) applies when, as here, a defendant appeals from a
judgment of conviction following a plea of not guilty. (See Chavez, supra, 30
Cal.4th at pp. 649-650; Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1094.) Section 1237,
subdivision (a) does not otherwise limit a defendant‘s right to appeal as long as he
or she files a timely appeal. (Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 649 [§ 1237, subd.
(a) ―generally authorizes an appeal without imposing any limitations on subject
matter‖]; Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1094; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(a).)
In concluding to the contrary, the Court of Appeal here relied on its recent
decision in Fulton, which held that section 1237.5 applies when a defendant
appeals an admission of an enhancement allegation regardless of whether he
pleads guilty or goes to trial on the substantive charges. We discuss Fulton next.
B. Fulton Decision
In Fulton, a jury convicted defendant David Louis Fulton for evading an
officer with willful or wanton disregard and for driving on a suspended license.
Waiving his right to a jury determination, Fulton entered a negotiated admission of
a prior prison term allegation in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining
3
―The absence of ambiguity in the statutory language dispenses with the
need to review the legislative history.‖ (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47,
56.) Although recognizing that section 1237.5 specifically does not mention
admissions of sentencing enhancements, the People discuss its legislative history
at great length, and maintain that the Legislature‘s failure to include such
admissions within the statute‘s purview was ―inadvertent.‖ We find their
discussion, which broadly asserts that the Legislature by adding pleas of nolo
contendere and admissions of probation violations to the section ―intended the trial
court screening function to apply to a broader class of cases,‖ unpersuasive.
5
allegations. (Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 1232.) After the trial court
denied his motion to withdraw his admission of the prior prison term, Fulton
appealed without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. Although he had
not pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to the substantive charges, the Court of
Appeal concluded that Fulton needed a certificate to challenge his admission. (Id.
at p. 1237.) In reaching this conclusion, the court focused on several cases
suggesting that admissions of sentencing enhancements should be treated virtually
the same as guilty pleas in this context. (Id. at pp. 1236-1238, discussing People
v. Perry (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1147, 1151 (Perry), People v. Lobaugh (1987)
188 Cal.App.3d 780, 785 (Lobaugh), and People v. Thurman (2007) 157
Cal.App.4th 36 (Thurman).)
In Perry, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and admitted a
firearm use allegation. He appealed the admission of the allegation, but did not
obtain a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. Dismissing the appeal,
the Court of Appeal reasoned: ―Section 1237.5 applies to a judgment of
conviction after a ‗plea of guilty or nolo contendere.‘ At issue here is the validity
or truth of a ‗use‘ allegation. A technical, literal argument could be made that
defendants do not ‘plead guilty’ to enhancement allegations, they ‘admit’ them.
We can see no reason to draw such a fine distinction regarding the words used.
Appellant‘s attack goes to his guilt or innocence, the truth of the alleged
enhancement, and would require consideration of evidence. Such issues have
been removed from consideration by the plea and admission.‖ (Perry, supra, 162
Cal.App.3d at p. 1151, italics added.) It concluded that ―an appeal which
questions proceedings before appellant‘s admission of the use of a firearm must
comply with section 1237.5.‖ (Ibid.)
Similarly, in Lobaugh, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery
and admitted allegations for firearm use, a prior serious felony conviction, and a
6
prior prison term. (Lobaugh, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Regarding the
defendant‘s challenge to the evidentiary sufficiency of the firearm allegation, the
Court of Appeal concluded that it was not cognizable on appeal because the
defendant had not obtained a certificate of probable cause: ―As part of his guilty
plea, defendant admitted the firearm use allegation. Admissions of enhancements
are subject to the same principles as guilty pleas. (See People v. Jackson (1985)
37 Cal.3d 826, 836.) A guilty plea admits every element of the offense charged
and is a conclusive admission of guilt. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d
889, 895; People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125.) It waives any right
to raise questions about the evidence, including its sufficiency.‖ (Lobaugh, supra,
188 Cal.App.3d at p. 785, italics added.)
Both Perry and Lobaugh are distinguishable. In each case, the defendant
had pleaded guilty to the substantive charge. This factual circumstance alone
triggers section 1237.5‘s requirement that a defendant obtain a certificate of
probable cause. (See Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 650-651; Mendez, supra, 19
Cal.4th at pp. 1094-1095.) Regarding the underlying analysis, we conclude that
each case incorrectly equated an admission of an enhancement with a guilty plea
for purposes of section 1237.5. Neither case lends support to the conclusion that a
certificate is required to challenge an admission on appeal where the defendant
goes to trial on the main charge.
Both Perry and Lobaugh concluded that like a guilty plea, an admission
removes from consideration evidence going to the truth of the alleged
enhancement. (Perry, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 1151; Lobaugh, supra, 188
Cal.App.3d at p. 785; see also Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1236-1237.)
This aspect of a guilty plea, however, has little to do with the application of
section 1237.5. As we have observed, ―A guilty plea admits every element of the
crime and constitutes a conviction. [Citations.] For that reason, and without
7
regard to section 1237.5, issues going to the determination of guilt or innocence
are not cognizable on appeal; review is instead limited to issues going to the
jurisdiction of the court or the legality of the proceedings, including the
constitutional validity of the plea.‖ (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170,
1177-1178 (Hoffard), italics added.) Section 1237.5 is a procedural statute whose
impact ― ‗relates to the procedure in perfecting an appeal from a judgment based
on a plea of guilty, and not to the grounds upon which such an appeal may be
taken.‘ [Citation.] Section 1237.5 does not restrict the scope of inquiry into a
cognizable error once a certificate has been issued.‖ (Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at
p. 1178.) Contrary to both Perry and Lobaugh, section 1237.5 by its terms is
triggered only by a defendant‘s plea of guilty or nolo contendere to the substantive
charge. In other words, whether or not a defendant‘s appellate claim challenges
the validity of his plea — or in this case, his admission of an enhancement
allegation — matters only if the appeal implicates section 1237.5 in the first place.
(See Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1177 [§ 1237.5 ―determines only whether or
not an appeal may be taken‖].)4
In fact, Perry and Lobaugh each concluded that the defendant‘s challenge
to the admission of enhancements was noncognizable on appeal irrespective of
section 1237.5 considerations. Each found that had the defendant obtained a
certificate of probable cause, the claim could not be reviewed on appeal. (Perry,
4
Perry‘s statement that section 1237.5 should apply to admissions of
enhancements because they may also be subject to a jury trial does not support the
People‘s position. (See Perry, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 1151, fn. 3 [trial on
enhancements ―would be contested, there would be a record, and the appeal would
not be attacking the validity of a plea of guilty regarding the enhancements‖].)
Again, this aspect has little to do with the application of section 1237.5, which
focuses on whether a defendant has pled guilty or nolo contendere to the
substantive charges in the first place.
8
supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 1152 [―Aside from the procedural bar of section
1237.5, the limited scope of review after a guilty plea precludes review of
appellant‘s contention‖]; Lobaugh, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 785 [any error
regarding evidentiary sufficiency ―was waived by his guilty plea and may not be
raised on appeal‖].) In addition, Lobaugh‘s generalized conclusion that the ―same
principles‖ govern an admission of an enhancement and a guilty plea is based on a
misapplication of our decision in People v. Jackson, supra, 37 Cal.3d 826.
(Lobaugh, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 785.) Jackson, which did not discuss
section 1237.5, dealt with the specific and narrow issue of allowing a defendant as
part of a plea bargain to admit an enhancement the prosecution may be unable to
prove (see People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612-613). (Jackson, supra, 37
Cal.3d at p. 836 [―defendant should have the same latitude with respect to
enhancements‖ as with substantive offenses].) Contrary to Lobaugh‘s suggestion,
Jackson does not support its sweeping assertion that admissions of enhancements
and guilty pleas should be treated the same in this context.5
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Fulton erroneously determined
that section 1237.5 applies to appeals where the defendant has not pleaded guilty
or nolo contendere. We disapprove People v. Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th
1230 to the extent it is inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
5
Moreover, the Fulton Court of Appeal‘s reliance on Thurman, supra, 157
Cal.App.4th 36, is also misplaced. (See Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp.
1237-1238.) In Thurman, after the jury deadlocked on several counts, the
defendant pleaded guilty to a count of carjacking, which judgment he subsequently
appealed. (Thurman, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 39-40.) The Thurman Court
of Appeal concluded that he needed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to
raise claims relating to the carjacking count. (Id. at pp. 42-44.) Like the courts in
Perry and Lobaugh, the Thurman court also concluded that the defendant‘s
evidentiary challenge was ―not cognizable on appeal, with or without a certificate
of probable cause.‖ (Id. at p. 43.)
9
C. Other Considerations
Furthermore, section 1237.5‘s underlying purpose of promoting economy
(see Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1095) would not be advanced by extending it
to convictions after pleas of not guilty. By screening out wholly frivolous appeals
after guilty or nolo contendere pleas, section 1237.5 prevents the unnecessary
expenditure of time and money spent on preparing the record on appeal,
appointing appellate counsel, and considering and rendering the decision of the
appeal itself. (Ibid.; Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1180 [§ 1237.5‘s goals are
―efficiency and practicality‖].) The underlying assumption is that a conviction
entered on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere generally ―does not present any
issue warranting relief on appeal, and hence should not be reviewed thereon.‖
(Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1097; id. at p. 1098 [through § 1237.5,
Legislature ―established a mechanism that did not invite consideration of the
peculiar facts of the individual appeal‖].) In contrast, when a defendant pleads not
guilty and is convicted after trial, as is the situation here, generally ―any issue
bearing on the determination of guilt and apparent from the record is cognizable
on appeal.‖ (Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 649.)
The People, however, argue that by admitting the prior conviction
enhancement, defendant removed from consideration the evidence supporting the
allegation. They maintain that like guilty or nolo contendere pleas, admissions of
prior convictions ―involve the same forfeiture of rights‖ and ―result from
negotiated bargaining and involve tactical decisions.‖6 In that regard, they assert
6
The People assert that defendant agreed to admit the alleged prior
convictions in exchange for the main charge to be reduced from petty theft with a
prior to simple petty theft. They argue that defendant is ―trifl[ing] with the courts
by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process‖ (People v.
Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295), and that his appellate claim attacks the
validity of his plea. Defendant, however, disagrees that the proceedings below
(Footnote continued on next page.)
10
that appellate claims following either pleas or admissions are equally likely to be
frivolous, and that screening all such claims through the issuance of a certificate of
probable cause will serve judicial economy.
We disagree with the People that any efficiency would be gained by
requiring defendants to obtain a certificate of probable cause after going to trial.
Although defendant here challenged only his admission and not his conviction of
the petty theft charge, the People do not suggest that defendant would have been
required to obtain a certificate to appeal the latter. Because defendants who go to
trial generally have the right to pursue an appeal without limitation (Chavez,
supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 649; § 1237), any savings in clerical or judicial resources
would not be realized by prohibiting them from also seeking review of an
admission without a certificate of probable cause. In advancing this efficiency
argument, the People appear to assert that under section 1237.5, courts should
effectively determine and certify each nonfrivolous issue reviewable on appeal.
We have already rejected this argument and its related policy concerns. (Hoffard,
supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1176-1180.)
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. The disputed characterization is
unimportant here. We have pointed out that whether a defendant‘s appellate claim
challenges the validity of his plea matters only if section 1237.5 is implicated in
the first place. (See ante, at p. 8.) We have concluded that the section is
inapplicable here. This conclusion, however, only means that the appeal is
operative without a certificate of probable cause; the court is not precluded from
later finding that defendant‘s claim lacks merit.
11
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal
and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CHIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
KENNARD, ACTING C. J.
BAXTER, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
BRUINIERS, J.*
_____________________________
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
12
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion People v. Maultsby
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
XXX NP opn. filed 3/16/10 – 3d Dist.Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No.
S182042Date Filed: January 5, 2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court:
SuperiorCounty: Yolo
Judge: Thomas Edward Warriner
__________________________________________________________________________________
Counsel:
Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Meredith Fahn, under appointment bythe Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Christina Hitomi
Simpson and Jamie Scheidegger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Elizabeth Campbell1215 K Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-8538
Jamie Scheidegger
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
(916) 323-1213
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. The court limited review to the following issue: Was defendant required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to raise on appeal a claim that his admissions regarding prior conviction allegations were not knowingly and intelligently made, even though he was convicted by jury of the underlying offense? (See Pen. Code, ? 1237.5; People v. Fulton (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1230.)
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: | Cross Referenced Cases: |
| Thu, 01/05/2012 | 53 Cal. 4th 296, 265 P.3d 1038, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542 | S182042 | Review - Criminal Appeal | opinion issued | PEOPLE v. VIDALES (S187220) |
| 1 | The People (Plaintiff and Respondent) Represented by Jamie Scheidegger Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA |
| 2 | The People (Plaintiff and Respondent) Represented by Christina Lea Simpson Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA |
| 3 | Maultsby, William Frederick (Defendant and Appellant) San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 Represented by Elizabeth M. Campbell Attorney at Law 1215 "K" Street, 17th Floor Sacramento, CA |
| 4 | Maultsby, William Frederick (Defendant and Appellant) San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 Represented by Central California Appellate Program 2407 "J" Street, Suite 301 2407 "J" Street, Suite 301 Sacramento, CA |
| 5 | Maultsby, William Frederick (Defendant and Appellant) San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 Represented by Meredith Lee Fahn Attorney at Law 1702-H Meridian Avenue, Suite 151 San Jose, CA |
| Opinion Authors | |
| Opinion | Justice Ming W. Chin |
| Disposition | |
| Jan 5 2012 | Opinion: Reversed |
| Dockets | |
| Apr 22 2010 | Petition for review filed Defendant and Appellant: Maultsby, William FrederickAttorney: Meredith Lee Fahn |
| Apr 22 2010 | Record requested |
| Apr 26 2010 | Received Court of Appeal record one doghouse |
| Jun 15 2010 | Time extended to grant or deny review The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including July 21, 2010, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. |
| Jun 30 2010 | Petition for review granted; issues limited The petition for review is granted. The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Was defendant required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to raise on appeal a claim that his admissions regarding prior conviction allegations were not knowingly and intelligently made, even though he was convicted by jury of the underlying offense? (See Pen. Code, ? 1237.5; People v. Fulton (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1230.) Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Jul 23 2010 | Counsel appointment order filed Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, Elizabeth Campbell is hereby appointed to represent appellant on the appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this order. |
| Aug 23 2010 | Request for extension of time filed Appellant is asking to September 22, 2010 to file the opening brief on the merits. |
| Aug 25 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including September 22, 2010. |
| Sep 21 2010 | Request for extension of time filed Submitted by Elizabeth Campbell, counsel for appellant, to extend time to file opening brief on the merits, to October 22, 2010. |
| Sep 22 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2010. No further extensions of time are contemplated. |
| Oct 25 2010 | Opening brief on the merits filed Defendant and Appellant: Maultsby, William FrederickAttorney: Elizabeth M. Campbell (CRC, rule 8.25(b)) |
| Nov 10 2010 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Campbell |
| Nov 18 2010 | Request for extension of time filed Submitted by Christina Hitomi Simpson, counsel for respondent, to extend time to file answer brief on the merits to 12/24/10. |
| Nov 24 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including December 24, 2010. No further extensions of time are contemplated. |
| Dec 23 2010 | Request for extension of time filed Submitted by Christina Simpson, counsel for respondent, to extend time to file answer brief on the merits to 1/24/11. |
| Dec 29 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including January 24, 2011. No further extensions of time will be granted. |
| Jan 25 2011 | Answer brief on the merits filed Plaintiff and Respondent: The PeopleAttorney: Christina Lea Simpson (CRC, rule 8.25(b)) |
| Feb 15 2011 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) Defendant and Appellant: Maultsby, William FrederickAttorney: Elizabeth M. Campbell (CRC, rule 8.25(b)) |
| Feb 17 2011 | Filed: Letter submitted by Elizabeth Campbell, counsel for respondent, advising unavailability for oral argument on the spring calendar. |
| Oct 4 2011 | Case ordered on calendar to be argued on Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco |
| Oct 6 2011 | Filed: letter from Elizabeth Campbell, counsel for appellant, requesting case be heard first on November 8, 2011 oral argument calendar. |
| Nov 9 2011 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Jan 4 2012 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted To be filed on Thursday, January 5, 2012 |
| Jan 5 2012 | Opinion filed: Judgment reversed Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Majority Opinion by Chin, J. --joined by Kennard, A. C. J., Baxter, Werdegar, Corrigan, Liu, and Bruiniers*, JJ. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. |
| Briefs | |
| Oct 25 2010 | Opening brief on the merits filed Defendant and Appellant: Maultsby, William FrederickAttorney: Elizabeth M. Campbell |
| Jan 25 2011 | Answer brief on the merits filed Plaintiff and Respondent: The PeopleAttorney: Christina Lea Simpson |
| Feb 15 2011 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) Defendant and Appellant: Maultsby, William FrederickAttorney: Elizabeth M. Campbell |
| Brief Downloads | |
 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Jun 7, 2012 Annotated by Jamie Kendall | FACTS: PROCEDURAL HISTORY: ISSUE: HOLDING: ANALYSIS: (2) The Court also found Fulton erroneously applied § 1237.5 to appeals in which the defendant had not pled guilty or nolo contendere. To support its holding, the Fulton court relied on Perry and Lobaugh, cases “suggesting that admissions of sentencing enhancements should be treated virtually the same as guilty pleas.” However, the Court found these cases distinguishable because the defendants there had already pled guilty to the substantive charge (e.g. robbery) before they admitted other allegations (e.g. use of a firearm). Since a guilty plea automatically triggers § 1237.5, the Court found neither case spoke to the issue. In addition, the Court criticized the reasoning in these prior cases on a deeper doctrinal level. While both Perry and Lobaugh reasoned that an admission, like a guilty plea, “removes from consideration evidence going to the truth of the alleged enhancement,” the Court found this point irrelevant to the application of § 1237.5. Since a guilty plea admits every element of the crime and constitutes a conviction, “issues going to the determination of guilt or innocence” are not cognizable on appeal anyways. Review is instead limited to issues of jurisdiction and the legality of the proceedings. In keeping, § 1237.5 is a narrow, procedural statute that “relates to the procedure in perfecting such an appeal from a judgment based on a plea of guilty.” Accordingly, the Court found that, contrary to Fulton and the cases on which it relies, § 1237.5 is applicable only if a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to the substantive charge. (3) Finally, the Court noted that extending § 1237.5 does not serve the provision’s purpose of promoting judicial economy. Section 1237.5 prevents the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources by screening frivolous appeals after pleas of not guilty and nolo contendere. The underlying assumption is that these pleas generally do “not present any issue warranting relief on appeal.” In contrast, defendants who plead not guilty and go to trial have the right generally to pursue an appeal without limitation. As a result, the Court found that any conservation of clerical or judicial resources would be lost by requiring such a large number of defendants to first obtain a certificate of probable cause before seeking review of an admission. RULING: KEY STATUTES: CAL. PENAL CODE § 1237.5 KEY CASES: People v. Fulton, 179 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 229 (2009) People v. Thurman, 157 Cal. App. 4th 36, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 (2007) In re Chavez, 30 Cal. 4th 643, 68 P.3d 347 (2003) People v. Mendez, 19 Cal. 4th 1084, 969 P.2d 146 (1999) People v. Hoffard, 10 Cal. 4th 1170, 899 P.2d 896 (1995) People v. Lobaugh, 188 Cal. App. 3d 780, 233 Cal. Rptr. 683 (Ct. App. 1987) People v. Perry, 162 Cal. App. 3d 1147, 209 Cal. Rptr. 414 (Ct. App. 1984) TAGS: Annotated by: Jamie Kendall |
