P. v. Johnson
Filed 1/25/13 P. v. Johnson
CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTINA
DARLENE JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
E056661
(Super.Ct.No. FSB1200653)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of
Bernardino County.
Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge.
Affirmed.
James
M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Christina Darlene Johnson was charged by information with
count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1),
counts 2 & 3), unlawful driving or
taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 4), and writing
multiple checks with insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a), count
5). As to counts 1 and 2, the
information alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury
within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
no contest to counts 2 and 4, in exchange for a three-year
the remaining counts and allegations.
The court sentenced her to three years in prison, awarded a total of 210
days of presentence custody credits, and ordered her to pay victim restitution.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal,
based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. She also challenged the validity of her plea
and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant
was charged with, and pled no contest to, assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle
(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), after she gave a car dealership two
checks with insufficient funds for the purchase of a car. When an investigator (the victim), who was
hired by the dealership to recover the car, located defendant, he told her he
would be taking possession of the car.
She stabbed him with a knife. The
victim sustained five stab wounds.
ANALYSIS
Defendant
appealed and, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent
her. Counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of
and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case
and two potential arguable issues:
(1) whether the restitution order was proper; and (2) whether
defendant’s plea was constitutionally valid.
Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the
entire record.
We offered
defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, which she has done.
In her handwritten personal brief, defendant contends that: (1) the proper legal procedure for
repossessing her car was not followed; (2) the victim never showed her an
identification card authorizing him to repossess her car; (3) the victim was
never asked to show what his job description was; (4) by law, the victim
should have had an identification on file with the State of California, and he
had no legal right or training and misrepresented himself to the court;
(5) defendant had a legal right to use force on an intruder; (6) defendant
was under attack by the victim, and she had a legal right to defend herself;
and (7) the medical examiner’s records stated that the victim sustained
three wounds, but the court records reflect five wounds; also, the victim lied
under oath when he stated he had five wounds.
Defendant
pleaded no contest. “[W]hen a defendant
pleads guilty or no contest and is convicted without a trial, only limited
issues are cognizable on appeal. A
guilty plea admits every element of the charged offense and constitutes a
conviction [citations], and consequently issues that concern the determination
of guilt or innocence are not cognizable.
[Citations.] Instead, appellate
review is limited to issues that concern the ‘jurisdiction of the court or the
legality of the proceedings, including the constitutional validity of the
plea.’ [Citations.]†(In re
Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649.)
In addition, “section 1237.5 authorizes an appeal [following a no
contest plea] only as to a particular category of issues,†and to have these
issues considered on appeal, a defendant must first take the additional
procedural step of obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (Id.
at p. 650.) All of the issues
raised in defendant’s supplemental brief concern the determination of guilt or
innocence, and are therefore not cognizable.
(Id. at p. 649.)
Furthermore,
defendant requested a certificate of probable cause to appeal, but her request
was denied by the trial court. “[W]here,
as here, a certificate of probable cause has been denied, the appeal is not
operative and the denial of the certificate must be reviewed by writ of
mandate.†(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.) Defendant did not challenge the denial by way
of writ of mandate, so she is precluded from obtaining review on the merits of
issues challenging the legality of the proceedings and/or the validity of her
plea. (See People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096-1097.)
Pursuant
to the mandate of People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential
error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
HOLLENHORST,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING, J.
CODRINGTON,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory
references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
