Court Opinion

ID: 9372104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 20:02:28.083834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.782988
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/17/23 P. v. Glass CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C096249

           v.                                                                    (Super. Ct. No. 21FE004994)

 SHANNON RUDOLF GLASS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Shannon Rudolf Glass asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Finding
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will
affirm the judgment.
                                                             I
         On March 25, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to rape of an unconscious
person (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(4)(b))1 and assault with intent to commit rape or

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
penetration by a foreign object (§ 220). Defendant admitted a prior strike allegation
(§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and the aggravating circumstances that the victims were
particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3))2 and that he took advantage
of a position of trust (rule 4.421(a)(11)). Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial
court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 32 years in prison (16 years for one
rape [the upper term doubled for the prior strike], plus four years for a second rape [one-
third the midterm doubled], plus 12 years for the assault [the upper term doubled]), and
dismissed the remaining counts. The trial court awarded defendant 416 days of
presentence credit (362 actual and 54 conduct) and struck all fines and fees,3 with victim
restitution to be determined later.
       Defendant did not secure a certificate of probable cause. This court subsequently
granted his motion to construe the notice of appeal as based on matters occurring after the
plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.
                                               II
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of
the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
       Defendant filed a supplemental brief, but many of his contentions concern pre-plea
proceedings. For example, he addresses the trial court’s denial of bail, his Marsden4
motion to replace his court-appointed attorney, and the waiver of his right to a speedy

2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

3 Because any error in striking the fines and fees inures to defendant’s benefit, the draft
does not address the issue.
4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

                                               2
trial. He also claims the trial judge allowed the prosecutor to be the judge, the judge and
the prosecutor treated him with hate, his first plea agreement should not have been
rejected once it was determined the trial court could not lawfully impose the stipulated
sentence, the use of his prior strike was unfair because it was 18 years old, and his fear of
a life term caused him to enter into a plea deal he now regrets. In addition, defendant
argues he was arrested without evidence. Defendant asks that we resentence him to time
served or reduce the agreed-upon 32-year sentence.
       In general, after pleading guilty or no contest, a defendant may not appeal without
first obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); People v. Cuevas
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379; see also People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098
[§ 1237.5 is applied strictly].) Under section 1237.5 and rule 8.304, no appeal may be
taken by a defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or no contest
without a certificate of probable unless the appeal involves a search and seizure issue, a
ground occurring after the plea or admission that does not affect the validity of the plea
or admission, or an issue for which no certificate of probable cause is required.
(Rule 8.304(b)(2)(A)-(C); see also § 1538.5.)
       In determining whether the certificate requirement applies to claims challenging a
sentence imposed after a guilty or no contest plea, the essential inquiry is whether the
claim is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea. (People v. Buttram (2003)
30 Cal.4th 773, 781-783, 786-787 [distinguishing challenges to the plea itself from
challenges to issues reserved or left open by the agreement].) “ ‘[A] challenge to a
negotiated sentence imposed as part of a plea bargain is properly viewed as a challenge to
the validity of the plea itself’ and thus requires a certificate of probable cause. (People v.
Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.)” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see
also People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 695 [“cases teach that when the parties reach
an agreement in the context of existing law, a claim that seeks to avoid a term of the
agreement, as made, is an attack on the plea itself”].)

                                              3
       Here, all but one of defendant’s arguments reflects concern with the plea
agreement and the court process leading up to the agreement. They challenge the validity
of defendant’s plea and are not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable
cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1098; People v. Panizzon,
supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 79; People v. Shelton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 766; see also People
v. Stamps, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 694-695.) Only the propriety of defendant’s arrest
warrant is not precluded by this requirement (rule 8.304(b)(2)(A); People v. Lilienthal
(1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 897), but because defendant did not challenge the arrest warrant in
the trial court, the issue is not preserved for appeal. (Lilienthal, at pp. 896-897.)
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
MCADAM, J.*

* Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                               4