1
Filed 5/2/17 P. v. Castaneda 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
SERGIO OSCAR CASTANEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
E067266
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1503170)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elisabeth Sichel, Judge.
Affirmed.
Sergio Oscar Castaneda, in pro. per.; and William Paul Melcher, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 7, 2015, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Sergio Oscar
Castaneda with (1) corporal injury on a spouse, Jane Doe, under Penal Code section
273.5, subdivision (a), a felony (count 1); and violation of the personal liberty of Jane
2
Doe under Penal Code section 236, a felony (count 2). On September 27, 2016, pursuant
to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the charge of corporal injury on a
spouse (count 1). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two
years, to run concurrent with the sentence he received in another case. The trial court
awarded credits, and imposed fines and fees.
On November 21, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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, and he
has done so. On April 18, 2017, defense counsel submitted defendant’s five-page
handwritten supplement brief dated April 7, 2017. In his brief, defendant essentially
challenges the validity of his plea agreement.
In this case, defendant’s notice of appeal indicated that his appeal was “based on
the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect the validity.”
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause and no certificate of probable
cause was granted in this appeal. Defendant’s personal brief, however, does not address
his sentence or matters that occurred after his plea. Instead, the brief addresses the
validity of his guilty plea to his substantive offense. Defendant argues that he was
3
pressured into entering his guilty plea and that he wanted to go to trial because he did not
commit corporate injury on a spouse. He alleges that Jane Doe broke his nose and he got
arrested when he took her to the hospital because she was under the influence. He states,
“I call the cops for help and they take me in to jail cause the po[li]ce officer wanted to
hook up [with] her, when she ran me over in front of the po[li]ce sta[t]ion.” Defendant
then goes on to state that “All I want is to go to tr[i]al to prove my innocence on this
case.” As noted, however, defendant 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.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist,
and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and
4
our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the
judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
FIELDS
J.