Filed 8/21/17 P. v. Bobb CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRANDON LATRELLNOEL BOBB,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E067397
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1602001)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Brandon Latrellnoel Bobb, in pro. per.; and Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 29, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Brandon Latrellnoel Bobb with sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a); count 1); and charged defendant and codefendant Keshawn Amis with sexual penetration in concert (Pen. Code, §§ 264.1, subd. (a), 289, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the complaint also alleged a sentencing enhancement for commission of a specified offense during the commission of a burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (e)(2)). On October 5, 2016, the prosecution amended the complaint and added count 4—assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). In exchange for a negotiated prison sentence of 10 years, defendant pled guilty to counts 2 and 4.
On October 25, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve 10 years in state prison, consisting of the upper term of nine years on count 2, with a consecutive term of one year (one-third the midterm) on count 4. The court dismissed counts 1 and 3 pursuant to the plea agreement. The court then awarded credit for presentence custody and imposed appropriate fines and fees.
On December 14, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging “the validity of the plea or admission.” Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause; the court denied the request on December 15, 2016. Thereafter, on December 23, 2016, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal. This notice indicated that the appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to the complaint, on or about April 29, 2016, defendant and co-defendant Amis, acting in concert, committed an act of sexual penetration against Jane Doe, by means of force and fear. On October 5, 2016, defendant agreed “that I did the things that are stated in the charges that I am admitting.”
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. On July 20, 2017, defendant filed a three-page typewritten brief with a one-page handwritten introduction. In his brief, defendant challenges his guilty plea. He states: “I am innocent and the facts stated throughout this appeal will show I was unfairly charged with a crime I did not commit and will also show I was coerced into choosing a guilty plea of 10 years’ [sic] vs 20 to life.” Thereafter, defendant provides his version of the facts in detail.
In this case, defendant filed a notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” Hence, defendant’s appeal appears to be limited to the issues pertaining to the issues relating to his sentence or matters arising after his plea. Defendant’s personal brief does not address these matters. Instead, the brief addresses the validity of his guilty plea to his substantive offenses. Defendant, however, failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. “[W]hen a defendant pleads guilty or no contest and is convicted without a trial, only limited issues are cognizable on appeal. A guilty plea admits every element of the charged offense and constitutes a conviction [citations], and consequently issues that concern the determination of guilt or innocence are not cognizable. [Citations.] Instead, appellate review is limited to issues that concern the ‘jurisdiction of the court or the legality of the proceedings, including the constitutional validity of the plea.’” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649.) In addition, “section 1237.5 authorizes an appeal [following a guilty plea] only as to a particular category of issues,” and to have these issues considered on appeal, a defendant must first take the additional procedural step of obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (Id. at p. 650.) Here, the issues raised in defendant’s supplemental brief concern the determination of guilt or innocence, and are therefore not cognizable. (Id. at p. 649.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
