Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Ross 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE, C103631
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24CF03065)
v.
NOAH ITHAMAR ROSS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Noah Ithamar Ross 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.)
Defendant also filed a supplemental brief asserting various claims. In short,
because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code
section 1237.5,1 we are unable to address these issues on appeal. (People v. Johnson
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679 (Johnson).) Having undertaken an examination of the entire
record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant. Consequently, we affirm.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
BACKGROUND
In November 2023, the victim obtained a restraining order against defendant. The
victim, an attorney, represented defendant’s former partner in a prior legal proceeding
against defendant. The victim kept a log chronicling defendant’s various violations of the
restraining order, which occurred from April to July 2024. On July 3 and 4, 2024,
defendant sent threatening voicemails to the victim, which she shared with the police.
The People charged defendant with stalking (§ 646.9) and disobeying a court order
(§ 166, subd. (a)(4)).
In August 2024, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency.
The trial court suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368. Following a
competency evaluation and hearing, the court found defendant was competent to stand
trial and reinstated the proceedings.
In October 2024, defendant filed an application for mental health diversion under
section 1001.36. In December 2024, defendant withdrew his application for mental
health diversion and pled guilty to stalking. In accordance with the plea agreement the
trial court dismissed the remaining count and the People agreed not to file charges in two
unrelated cases, which are not subject to this appeal.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of one year four months in
prison for stalking. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a
corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked)
(§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30
criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court also required defendant
to pay a parole revocation fine in another unrelated case, which is not subject to this
appeal. The court awarded defendant 392 days of custody credits.
Defendant timely appealed but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
2
DISCUSSION
Defendant makes four separate claims of error: (1) the trial court demonstrated
bias, which deprived him of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution; (2) defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the court
deprived defendant of due process by subjecting him to forced medication without a
signed consent form, which led to his inability to participate in his own defense; and (4)
defendant’s actions related to the stalking conviction were constitutionally protected
activity (§ 646.9, subd. (g)).
Generally, a defendant may not take an appeal from a judgment of conviction
entered on a guilty or no contest plea, except to challenge the legality of the proceedings,
including the validity of the plea. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) A
criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without a
certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress
evidence (§ 1538.5, subd. (m)), or raise claims arising after the entry of the plea that do
not affect the validity of the plea (Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 676-677; Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)). We cannot address the claims raised by defendant in his
supplemental brief because he has not obtained a certificate of probable cause.2
(Johnson, at pp. 678-679.)
We have reviewed the portion of the record that does not require a certificate of
probable cause and find no arguable errors that could lead to a more favorable disposition
for defendant.
2 Although this court cannot address defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim
in the absence of a certificate of probable cause, under appropriate circumstances,
defendant may pursue such a claim through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
(Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 684-685.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
RENNER, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4