Court Opinion

ID: 9955147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 19:02:13.435885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.708542
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/24 P. v. Silas CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                     A167178
 v.
 SHELDON SILAS,                                                      (Contra Costa County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. 05001407097)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Appellant Sheldon Silas was originally sentenced to life without the
possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of two counts of murder and
other crimes in connection with the 2012 killings of Christopher Zinn and
Brieanna Dow. (People v. Silas (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1064–1066
(Silas I).) We reversed Silas’s and his co-defendants’ convictions due to a
Batson/Wheeler1 error. (Id. at p. 1064.) On remand, Silas entered a no-
contest plea to two counts of voluntary manslaughter and a firearm
enhancement. In December 2022, the trial court sentenced him to 26 years in
prison.
         In this appeal from the 2022 judgment, Silas’s counsel asked this court
to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979)

         1 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79; People v. Wheeler (1978)

22 Cal.3d 258.

                                                               1
25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues.2 Silas
then filed a supplemental letter brief in which he argues that the trial court
erred in calculating his custody credits. But Silas waived his right to appeal
on such grounds as part of the plea agreement, and he did not obtain a
certificate of probable cause enabling him to challenge the waiver’s validity.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
      The underlying facts are not relevant. In November 2022, on remand
from our reversal of the original judgment in Silas I, Silas entered a plea
agreement under which he pled no contest to two counts of voluntary
manslaughter and admitted to personally using a firearm during the killing
of Zinn.3 The following month, the trial court sentenced Silas to a total term
of 26 years in prison, composed of 11 years for the killing of Zinn and
consecutive terms of 4 years for the accompanying firearm enhancement and
11 years for the killing of Dow. The remaining counts and allegations were
dismissed.
      As part of the plea agreement, Silas waived his right to appeal by
initialing a box on his plea form next to the following statement: “I
understand that I have the right to appeal this sentence, conviction and any
rulings made by the Court in this case. I give up my right to appeal in
exchange for accepting this negotiated disposition.” He and his trial counsel
also indicated in writing and at the plea hearing that he understood and
voluntarily accepted the consequences of the plea, and the trial court so

      2 Reginald Whitley, one of Silas’s co-defendants, also appealed after

entering a plea on remand from Silas I. In January 2024, we permanently
abated all proceedings in this matter against Whitley upon being informed of
his death in prison.
      3 The convictions were under Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a),

and the firearm enhancement was under Penal Code section 12022.5,
subdivision (a).

                                       2
found. Silas then appealed the judgment without obtaining a certificate of
probable cause.4
      Generally, an appellate waiver entered as part of a plea agreement is
enforceable. (People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 186.) “[W]hen a
defendant waives the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement, and the
waiver’s terms encompass the issue the defendant wishes to raise, the
defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause to avoid dismissal of the
appeal.” (People v. Espinoza (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 794, 803.) Thus, “[i]f the
defendant’s claim is not within the scope of [the] appellate waiver, the waiver
does not preclude an appellate court from considering the defendant’s
underlying claim.” (Becerra, at p. 188.) But “if the defendant’s appellate
claim falls withing the scope of [the] appellate waiver that is part of a plea
agreement, the defendant ‘must obtain a certificate of probable cause to
appeal on any ground covered by the waiver, regardless of whether the claim
arose before or after entry of the plea. Absent such a certificate, the
appellate court lacks authority . . . 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.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Espinoza, at p. 797, italics omitted.)
      Here, Silas waived in writing his right to appeal the “sentence” and
“any rulings” by the trial court, terms that encompass the right to challenge
the award of custody credits. (See People v. Becerra, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 189–190 [waiver of appeals of “judgment” and “sentence” included
appellate challenge to custody credits].) Accordingly, to raise his custody-
credits claim on appeal, Silas would have had to obtain a certificate of

      4 While this appeal was pending, Silas’s appellate counsel asked the

trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to include local conduct credits,
and the court did so. In his letter brief, Silas contends that other credits
errors remain.

                                         3
probable cause to permit him to argue that the appellate waiver was
unenforceable. (See People v. Espinoza, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 803.)
Because he did not obtain a certificate, we must presume that the appellate
waiver is valid and enforceable. In turn, because the waiver encompasses the
award of custody credits, we cannot consider the claim he now raises. Nor do
we perceive any other arguable issues that the appellate waiver would not
also encompass.
     The appeal is dismissed.

                                      4
                                          _________________________
                                          Humes, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Langhorne Wilson, J.

_________________________
Castro, J*.

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

People v. Silas A167178

                                      5