certificate requirement in California

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2025(See Buttram, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 790 [certificate of probable cause rules “do not base the certificate requirement directly upon the dubious merit of a postplea appeal”].) 9 forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.” ’ ” ’ ” (Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 247, 264 , italics omitted.) We conclude that Miller’s failure to raise this issue at the sentencing hearing forfeited his claim.

2020Absent such a certificate, the appellate court lacks authority under California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) to consider the claim because it is in substance a challenge to the validity of the appellate waiver, and therefore to the validity of the plea.” (People v. Espinoza (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 794, 797 .) 13 As Justice Baxter explained in his concurring opinion in People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773 , “[a]n attempt to appeal the enforceability of the appellate waiver itself (for example, on grounds that it was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, or had been induced by counsel’s ine

2025In general, a defendant who has pled guilty or no contest may not appeal the judgment of conviction without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379 .) In determining whether a certificate of probable cause is required for a claim, “courts must look to the substance of the appeal: ‘the crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging,

2025In general, a defendant who has pleaded guilty or no contest may not appeal the judgment of conviction without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379 .) In determining whether a certificate of probable cause is required for a claim, “courts must look to the substance of 6 the appeal: ‘the crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging, not t

2020(People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 677 [defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea]; People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379 [“Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.”]; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 .) Pack’s appeal is an attack on the validity of the plea because he bargained for the specific sentence he received—an aggregate term of 12 years four months in state prison.

2014(See § 1237.5;2 People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Johnson) [“Even when a defendant purports to challenge only the sentence imposed, a certificate of probable cause is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement. [Citations.]”]; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78 [holding that the certificate requirement applies where the sentence was “part and parcel of the plea agreement he negotiated with the People”].) We therefore dismiss the appeal as to his challenge to his sentence and affirm in al

2026(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [rejecting contrary authority]; see People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 1097–1098 [strict compliance with § 1237.5 required].) Instead, a defendant may challenge the denial of a certificate of probable cause by filing a petition for writ of mandate.

1998(See People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1187 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 ].) Disposition The appeal is dismissed.

2009Although Ward also involved a proceeding subsequent to entry of the plea, the “determinative factor” in that case was “the substance of the error being challenged, not the time at which the hearing was conducted.” (Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 63.) We concluded that a contrary holding would “invite such motions [to withdraw the plea] as a matter of course, and would be wholly contrary to the purpose of section 1237.5.” (Id. at p. 64.) In the present case, defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to the assistance of counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea plainly does

1979(People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 65.) If counsel is derelict in this duty, the defendant can obtain relief from default.

2025In general, a defendant who has pled guilty or no contest may not appeal the judgment of conviction without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379 .) In determining whether a certificate of probable cause is required, “ ‘ “courts must look to the substance of the appeal: ‘the crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging, not the t

2018This is because, however important and meritorious such a challenge might be, it too would manifestly constitute an attack on the plea's validity, thus requiring a certificate in any event. ( Buttram, supra , 30 Cal.4th at pp. 792-793, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 571 , 69 P.3d 420 (conc. opn. of Baxter, J.), some italics omitted.) In Mashburn , Division Five of this Court considered an appellate challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress brought by a defendant who had failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause and had expressly "agreed as part of his plea bargain to give up his right of appeal."

2009Although Ward also involved a proceeding subsequent to entry of the plea, the “determinative factor” in that case was “the substance of the error being challenged, not the time at which the hearing was conducted.” (Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 63.) We concluded that a contrary holding would “invite such motions [to withdraw the plea] as a matter of course, and would be wholly contrary to the purpose of section 1237.5.” (Id. at p. 64.) In the present case, defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to the assistance of counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea plainly does

2008Accordingly, a challenge to the trial court’s authority to impose the lid sentence is a challenge to the validity of the plea requiring a certificate of probable cause.” ( 37 Cal.4th at p. 763 .) *45 On ttie other hand, we have held that the certificate requirement does not apply when the defendant “assert[s] only that errors occurred in the . . . adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 426 P.2d 881 ].) Accordingly, “a certificate of prob

2026(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [rejecting contrary authority]; see People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 1097–1098 [strict compliance with § 1237.5 required].) Instead, a defendant may challenge the denial of a certificate of probable cause by filing a petition for writ of mandate.

2008(People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 559 P.2d 1028 ]; People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1100 ; § 1237, subd. (b).) The certificate requirement is inapplicable “if the appeal is based upon grounds that arose after entry of the plea *647 and that do not affect the validity of the plea.” (People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 43 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 178 P.3d 1100 ].) “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 wha

2026Our high court has held that the certificate requirement does not apply when the defendant “ ‘assert[s] only that errors occurred in the . . . adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed’ ” such as where, as here, a defendant claims that the upper term was not authorized because the prosecution failed to establish an 12 aggravating circumstance at the sentencing hearing in the manner required by the Sixth Amendment, as “[s]uch a claim does not affect the validity of the plea agreement.” (French, supra, 43

2008“A defendant may not appeal ‘from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty of nolo contendere,’ unless he has obtained a certificate of probable cause. [Citations.] Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea. [Citations.]” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 , 187 P.3d 30 ] (Cuevas).) This case requires us to consider two recent California Supreme Court decisions construing this rule: People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 178 P.3d 1100 ] (Fre

2019Since Allison did not raise the challenge to his sentencing by way of appeal or even seek habeas relief in this court but instead filed a habeas petition in the superior court, the certificate requirement does not apply. 9 The People point out that our Supreme Court has stated that “[n]ormally habeas corpus will not lie where the remedy of appeal exists.” (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682 ; see also In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 651 [defendant challenging a plea agreement on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot circumvent section 1237.5 by seeking a writ of habeas

2006The People note that habeas corpus is generally unavailable where an appeal lies (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 511 P.2d 1153 ]), and that a defendant generally cannot circumvent the certificate requirement by seeking a writ of habeas corpus (In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 651 ).

2019Since Allison did not raise the challenge to his sentencing by way of appeal or even seek habeas relief in this court but instead filed a habeas petition in the superior court, the certificate requirement does not apply. 9 The People point out that our Supreme Court has stated that “[n]ormally habeas corpus will not lie where the remedy of appeal exists.” (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682 ; see also In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 651 [defendant challenging a plea agreement on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot circumvent section 1237.5 by seeking a writ of habeas

2019Since Allison did not raise the challenge to his sentencing by way of appeal or even seek habeas relief in this court but instead filed a habeas petition in the superior court, the certificate requirement does not apply. 9 The People point out that our Supreme Court has stated that “[n]ormally habeas corpus will not lie where the remedy of appeal exists.” (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682 ; see also In re Chavez, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 651 [defendant challenging a plea agreement on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot circumvent section 1237.5 by seeking a writ of habeas

2018Hurlic's appeal was indisputably meritorious, and no defendant could possibly obtain a certificate to make a challenge based on a law that did not exist at the time of sentencing. ( Hurlic , at pp. 57-58, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 .) Third, Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted after section 1237.5 (the certificate requirement) and therefore should be given priority over the earlier enacted statute. ( Hurlic , at p. 58, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 .) We find the Second District's first reason dispositive. "[T]he general rule in California is that the plea agreement will be ' "deemed to incorporate and contemplate

2018Hurlic's appeal was indisputably meritorious, and no defendant could possibly obtain a certificate to make a challenge based on a law that did not exist at the time of sentencing. ( Hurlic , at pp. 57-58, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 .) Third, Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted after section 1237.5 (the certificate requirement) and therefore should be given priority over the earlier enacted statute. ( Hurlic , at p. 58, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 .) We find the Second District's first reason dispositive. "[T]he general rule in California is that the plea agreement will be ' "deemed to incorporate and contemplate

2003We held that the certificate requirement does not apply when the defendant "is not seeking to vacate the plea," but "assert[s] only that errors occurred in the ... adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed." ( Ward supra, 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 426 P.2d 881 .) In People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 , 951 P.2d 1191 ( Lloyd ), the defendant pled no contest, without a bargain, to charges and enhancements that rendered him eligible for treatment as a "third strike" off

2003We held that the certificate requirement does not apply when the defendant "is not seeking to vacate the plea," but "assert[s] only that errors occurred in the ... adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed." ( Ward supra, 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 426 P.2d 881 .) In People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 , 951 P.2d 1191 ( Lloyd ), the defendant pled no contest, without a bargain, to charges and enhancements that rendered him eligible for treatment as a "third strike" off

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2026Section 1237.5 states that “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” except where the defendant has filed a statement with the trial court “showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and “[t]he trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 of the court.” “Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues,

2026Specifically, “a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.” (People v. Wiley, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1086, fn. omitted; see also § 1170, subd. (b)(3).) For example, a defendant is “entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justifi

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 203 ; People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 377 [“absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea”].) People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cross) does not assist Miller.