Court Opinion

ID: 9788428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:52:06.962959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:02.196825
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.
I respectfully dissent.
Decades ago, this court misguidedly entered “into the business of crafting exceptions” to the certificate of probable cause requirement found in Penal Code section 1237.5. (People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 667 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224, 951 P.2d 1191] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) In doing so, this court ignored the broad language of the statute and forgot the purpose of the *796requirement—“ ‘to promote judicial economy “by screening out wholly frivolous guilty [and nolo contendere] plea appeals before time and money is spent preparing the record and the briefs for consideration by the reviewing court.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 668, quoting People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75-76 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, 913 P.2d 1061].) Five years ago, I warned my colleagues that our continued expansion of these exceptions further eviscerates the purpose behind the requirement and creates “a prescription for unnecessary litigation.” (Lloyd, at p. 668.) But, like the prophecies of Cassandra, my warnings were ignored.
We now have another opportunity to “halt th[is] process.” (People v. Lloyd, supra, 17 Cal.4th 658, 668 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) But once again my colleagues decline to do so. Instead, they hold that “absent contrary provisions in the plea agreement itself, a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum sentence.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 790.) In reaching this holding, they conclude that “[s]uch an agreement, by its nature, contemplates that the court will choose from among a range of permissible sentences within the maximum, and that abuses of this discretionary sentencing authority will be reviewable on appeal, as they would otherwise be.” (Id. at pp. 790-791.)
I disagree. Although a defendant who agrees to a maximum sentence contemplates a separate proceeding where the trial court may exercise its normal sentencing discretion, he, by definition, agrees to any sentence equal to or below that maximum. In other words, the defendant has, by entering into the plea agreement, given up the right to challenge the trial court’s exercise of discretion at the sentencing proceeding so long as the sentence does not exceed the agreed-upon maximum. Thus, defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion is an attack on the validity of the plea and falls outside our judicially created exceptions to the certificate of probable cause requirement.
People v. McNight (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 620 [217 Cal.Rptr. 393]—on which we relied heavily in People v. Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th 68— supports this conclusion. In McNight, the defendant pled guilty in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement to dismiss certain charges and recommend a specific sentence. After receiving the recommended sentence, the defendant appealed, contending he “was prejudiced by the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s recommendation and by his counsel’s failure to argue mitigating circumstances.” (McNight, at p. 624.) The defendant contended he did not need a probable cause certificate because he sought “only appellate review of the sentencing procedure.” (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal disagreed *797because the defendant “received exactly the sentence promised in the agreement. His contention that consideration of mitigating circumstances should have resulted in imposition of a sentence less than the agreed-upon 21 years goes to the heart of the plea agreement itself.” (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion even though the plea agreement contemplated a separate sentencing proceeding where the trial court could exercise its normal sentencing discretion. According to the court, this sentencing proceeding was “not separate and distinct from” the defendant’s guilty plea. (People v. McNight, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at p. 625.) Rather, “the sentencing hearing provided the setting for the performance of the plea agreement. The terms of the agreement were discussed, and the trial court acted in complete accordance with those terms.” (Ibid.) The same reasoning applies here. Because defendant’s plea agreement provided for a maximum sentence and defendant received that maximum sentence, his sentencing hearing was “not separate and distinct from his plea of guilty.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, I would hold that defendant needed a certificate of probable cause to challenge the trial court’s “exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 790.)
Of course, even if my colleagues had adopted my reasoning, it would do little to remedy the problem. Our prior jurisprudence has made the laudatory goal of Penal Code section 1237.5—to promote judicial economy—virtually impossible to attain. Like Sisyphus who must push his rock up a hill for all eternity, we appear doomed to forever construe these exceptions in a futile effort to articulate the scope of the certificate of probable cause requirement. Perhaps the Legislature will save us from this fate. Perhaps next time we will learn our lesson.