Opinion ID: 1455590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: We must determine at the outset which, if any, of the issues raised are properly cognizable on appeal. Section 1237.5 provides that an appeal may be taken after a plea of guilty only if the defendant obtains from the trial court a certificate of probable cause. [3] Defendant here did not do so, and we must therefore determine whether the errors alleged come within recognized exceptions to the requirement of section 1237.5. (1) The search and seizure issues may obviously be raised on this appeal. It has been held that section 1538.5, subdivision (m), which provides that search and seizure issues may be raised on appeal after a plea of guilty, constitutes an exception to section 1237.5. ( People v. Rose (1968) 267 Cal. App.2d 648 [73 Cal. Rptr. 349].) Rule 31(d) of the California Rules of Court now expressly recognizes this exception. [4] (2) We have also held that section 1237.5 does not apply where a defendant does not challenge the original validity of the plea but asserts that errors were committed in proceedings subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the penalty to be imposed. ( People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 [58 Cal. Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881]; People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909 [73 Cal. Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629].) This exception is now also expressly recognized in rule 31(d). Because the alleged breach of the plea bargain by the prosecutor occurred after entry of the plea and because it pertains only to sentencing, this claim comes within this exception. ( In re Harrell (1970) 2 Cal.3d 675, 705-706 [87 Cal. Rptr. 504, 470 P.2d 640]; People v. Delles, supra, 69 Cal.2d 906, 909.) (3) The alleged failure to warn defendant of the effect of a plea of guilty on his right of appeal and the refusal to grant a continuance, however, are clearly matters occurring before the entry of the plea and affecting the validity of the plea. We have previously rejected the proposition that denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty may always be appealed without a certificate of probable cause because it always occurs after the entry of the plea. The determinative factor is when the claims upon which the motion was based arose and not when the motion to withdraw was denied. ( People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63-64 [92 Cal. Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308].) Because no certificate of probable cause was obtained, these two issues may not be raised on this appeal. (4) Furthermore, the alleged error in the refusal to grant a continuance could not have been raised even if defendant had obtained a certificate of probable cause, because it was waived by the plea of guilty. Other than search and seizure issues which are specifically made reviewable by section 1538.5, subdivision (m), all errors arising prior to entry of a guilty plea are waived, except those which question the jurisdiction or legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea. (See People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d 55, 63 and cases cited therein.) Any error in the refusal to postpone the trial here clearly does not rise to such proportions. [5] Obtaining a certificate of probable cause does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty. ( People v. Massey (1976) 59 Cal. App.3d 777 [130 Cal. Rptr. 581].) (5) As noted previously, section 1237.5 does not affect the grounds upon which appeal may be taken following a guilty plea; it merely establishes a procedure for screening out frivolous claims among these issues which have not been waived. ( People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d 55, 63; In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 683 [108 Cal. Rptr. 801, 511 P.2d 1153].)