P. v. Rodriguez








Filed 9/14/11 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/5






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

B232793 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA081628)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Dismissed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Tasha G. Timbadia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On March 4, 2011, defendant, Daniel Christopher Rodriguez, pled no contest to a felony charge and admitted the truth of a special allegation. Defendant’s probable cause certificate issuance request was denied. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We thus issued an order to show cause re dismissal and set the matter for oral argument.
The appeal must be dismissed. Defendant has failed to fully and timely comply with both Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 651; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099; People v. Way (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 733, 736.) Without a probable cause certificate, defendant cannot appeal. (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8; People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 61; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 600-601; People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574-576.) Moreover, the notice of appeal fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B) in that it does not state defendant is appealing from matters occurring after the plea which does not affect its validity. (People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096; see People v. Fulton (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1235-1236.)
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:


KRIEGLER, J. KUMAR, J.*
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---