Court Opinion

ID: 9929483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 19:02:24.950317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:48.765712
License: Public Domain

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          NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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                              A169523
    SOLANO COUNTY,
                                                       (Solano County
            Respondent;
                                                       Super. Ct. No. FCR367504)
    THE PEOPLE,
            Real Party in Interest.

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

                                                1
      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.)

                                   2
(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

                                   3
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).)

                                  4