People v. Smith CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims his plea was improperly induced by an illusory promise that he would retain the right to appeal any issue occurring from the initiation of his prosecution to prior to entering the plea agreement. The People concede the issue. Accordingly, we agree with defendant that reversal is required to allow defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. The parties and the trial court cannot, by a plea agreement, expand the jurisdiction of the appellate court and make an issue cognizable on appeal when it has been waived by a plea of no contest. (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9; People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896.) Issues cognizable on an appeal following a guilty plea are limited to issues based on “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” resulting in the plea. (§ 1237.5; see also People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 60-64.) A defendant waives most preplea issues on appeal

3 upon entering into a plea agreement. (See, e.g., DeVaughn, at pp. 893, 896 [following guilty pleas, issue of denial of motions to suppress extrajudicial statements not preserved]; People v. Hollins (1993)…