1

Filed 2/2/24 Trowbridge v. Superior Court CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ADAM TROWBRIDGE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SOLANO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

 A169523

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. FCR367504)

THE COURT:

*

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent 

superior court to issue a certificate of probable cause under Penal 

Code section 1237.5.1 We conclude petitioner is entitled to the 

requested relief.2

* Before Simons, Acting P.J., Burns, J. and Chou, J.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless 

otherwise noted.

2 We grant the petition by way of this memorandum opinion 

because “[t]he Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that 
2

Before a defendant may take an appeal from a judgment of 

conviction based upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the 

defendant must “fil[e] with the trial court a written statement, 

executed under oath or penalty of perjury[,] showing reasonable 

constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the 

legality of the proceedings,” and obtain from the trial court “a 

certificate of probable cause for such appeal.” (§ 1237.5.)

In deciding whether to issue a certificate of probable cause, 

“[t]he trial court is empowered to review the statement of the 

grounds of the appeal to preclude those appeals which raise no 

issues cognizable after a guilty plea or which raise cognizable 

issues which are ‘clearly frivolous and vexatious. . . .’ [Citations.] 

[¶] It is not the trial court’s responsibility to determine if there 

was an error in the proceedings. The trial court’s sole objective is 

to eliminate those appeals ‘having no possible legal basis’ by 

refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. [Citations.] 

Section 1237.5 requires the trial court to certify any arguably 

meritorious appeal to the appellate courts. Thus, if the 

statement submitted by the defendant in accordance with section 

1237.5 presents any cognizable issue for appeal which is not 

clearly frivolous and vexatious, the trial court abuses its 

discretion if it fails to issue a certificate of probable cause. 

[Citations.]” (People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 83-84, 

disapproved on other grounds in People v. Mendez (Mendez)

raise no substantial issues of law or fact by memorandum or 

other abbreviated form of opinion.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., 

§ 8.1.)
3

(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098 & fns. 7 & 9.) The propriety of 

a trial court’s refusal to issue a certificate of probable cause is 

reviewable on mandamus. (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 683, 

disapproved on other grounds in Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 

1097 & fn. 7; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676.)

Here, in articulating grounds going to the legality of his no 

contest plea to felony unlawful firearm activity and misdemeanor 

domestic violence (§§ 29825, subd. (a), 273.5, subd. (a)), 

petitioner’s certificate request asserted the superior court had 

erred in denying his motion for mental health diversion 

(§ 1001.36) “because the evidence did not support the court’s 

finding that [petitioner] would pose an unreasonable risk of 

danger to public safety.” 

Respondent superior court summarily denied petitioner’s 

request for a certificate of probable cause. Petitioner argues 

respondent abused its discretion, since his application asserted a 

cognizable and non-frivolous appellate issue. 

The Attorney General’s response to the petition concedes 

“petitioner presented a cognizable issue for appeal that was not 

clearly frivolous and vexatious: whether the superior court 

properly denied his motion for mental health diversion.” Our 

review of the petition and record compel us to agree.

In accordance with our notification to the parties that we 

might do so, and as agreed by the Attorney General, we will 

direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See 

Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 

177-180.) Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious under settled 
4

principles of law, and no useful purpose would be served by 

issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral 

argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see 

Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236-1237, 1240-

1241; see also Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior 

Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240-1244.)

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, commanding 

respondent to set aside and vacate its October 25, 2023 order 

denying petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause, 

and to enter a new and different order granting said application. 

To prevent further delay, this opinion shall be immediately 

final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) A 

copy of this opinion shall be filed in the related appeal in case No. 

A169050. Should the parties so stipulate, the remittitur shall 

issue immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1), 

8.490(d).)