Filed 1/30/15 P. v. Contreras CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD GALINDO CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F067905

(Super. Ct. No. VCF273928B)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. H.N. 

Papadakis, Judge. 

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Detjen, J.
2

Appellant, Richard Galindo Contreras, pled guilty in case No. VCF273928B to 

possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351)1 and 

possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364.1, subd. (a)) and admitted six prior prison term 

enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and allegations that he had a prior 

conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). 

In case No. PRCS000378 Contreras admitted that he violated the terms of his PostRelease Community Supervision. Following independent review of the record pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 8, 2011, Contreras was released from Pelican Bay State Prison on 

Post-Release Community Supervision.

On February 17, 2012, Contreras failed to report to probation as instructed. 

On February 21, 2012, Contreras provided a urine sample that tested positive for 

opiates. 

On September 28, 2012, at approximately 11:47 a.m., officers from the Visalia 

Police Department and the TARGET drug task force went to Contreras’s residence to 

serve a search warrant. After knocking on the door and receiving no answer the officers

forced entry into the house and in the front room encountered Contreras’s father, who 

was confined to a wheelchair. The officers searched the house and detained Contreras

and codefendant, Willie Champion, in a bathroom.

During a visual inspection of Contreras’s bedroom officers found two syringes, 

each containing a heroin solution that was ready to be injected. When asked if there were 

any other illegal items in the bedroom Contreras stated that everything was in a green 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise 

indicated.
3

canvas bag. A search of the bag uncovered numerous bindles of heroin weighing 

approximately 5.9 grams with packaging, numerous used syringes, two digital scales, and 

a metal spoon. The officers also found a single plastic baggie containing heroin on the 

floor (case No. VCF273928B). 

On December 5, 2012, in case No. PRCS000378 a Petition of Revocation of 

Community Service was filed alleging that Contreras violated the conditions of his 

community release. 

On December 24, 2012, the district attorney filed an information charging 

Contreras with possession for sale of heroin (count 1), possession of heroin 

(count 2/§ 11350, subd. (a)), possession of drug paraphernalia (count 3), six prior prison 

term enhancements, and an allegation that Contreras had a prior conviction within the 

meaning of the three strikes law. 

On March 1, 2013, Contreras entered his plea in case No. VCF273928B, as 

previously noted, in exchange for the dismissal of count 2 and a stipulated term of 10 

years. Contreras also admitted that he violated the terms of his release in case 

No. PRCS000378. 

On or about May 7, 2013, Contreras filed a motion to withdraw his plea and for 

appointment of counsel. 

On May 16, 2013, the court appointed substitute counsel for Contreras to review 

his case and determine whether to file a motion to withdraw plea on Contreras’s behalf.

On June 26, 2013, the court denied Contreras’s motion to withdraw plea which 

substitute counsel presented orally. The court then sentenced Contreras in case 

No. VCF273928B to an aggregate 10-year prison term: the mitigated term of two years 

on his possession for sale of heroin conviction, doubled to four years because of 

Contreras’s strike conviction, six one-year prior prison term enhancements, no additional 
4

time on his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, and a concurrent 180 days 

for violating the terms of his release in case No. PRCS000378. 

On August 26, 2013, Contreras filed a notice of appeal. Also on that date, the 

court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. 

Contreras’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 

record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a document filed on 

December 19, 2013, Contreras contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel 

during plea bargaining because defense counsel coerced him into taking a plea bargain by 

telling Contreras: (1) he did not have time to take his case to trial; (2) Contreras would 

receive a sentence of 16 years if he did; and (3) that Contreras would receive 50 percent 

conduct credit. Contreras also contends that his defense counsel was ineffective because 

he did not assist him in filing his appeal and in obtaining a certificate of probable cause. 

Contreras’s claims, however, are not cognizable on appeal.

“The purpose of requiring defendants to obtain certificates of probable cause is to 

save judicial time and prevent frivolous appeals of matters that were resolved by plea or 

admission. [Citations.] Matters occurring before a plea of guilty or no contest that affect 

the plea’s validity cannot be raised without a certificate of probable cause. [Citation.]” 

(People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1186.) 

Here, Contreras requested a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and it 

was denied. Further, his contention that he was not provided the effective assistance of 

counsel in entering his plea involves matters that occurred prior to Contreras entering his 

plea and go to its validity. Therefore, since Contreras did not obtain a certificate of 

probable cause, this contention is not cognizable on appeal. Additionally, his claim that 

he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in entering his plea is not cognizable on 

appeal for the additional reason that it relies on facts outside the record. (People v. 
5

Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 [“An appellate court’s review is limited to 

consideration of the matters contained in the appellate record”].) Similarly, Contreras’s 

contention that defense counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to assist 

him in filing an appeal and obtaining a certificate of probable cause is also not cognizable 

on appeal because it relies on facts outside the record. (Ibid.)

Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably 

arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.