Stubbs

People v. Stubbs

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 83·61 Cal. App. 4th 243·71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423·98 Daily Journal DAR 1247·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 952
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1998H016362California411 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wunderlich, J.

Statement of the Case

Defendant appeals from a judgment after he pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale, receiving stolen property, and tampering with a vehicle identification number and admitted various firearm enhancement allegations and a prior-prison-term enhancement allegation. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that prior to the plea, defense counsel failed to advise him that he could challenge a search by police and seek the disclosure of a confidential informant. He also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea based on counsel’s ineffective assistance.

Discussion

We do not reach these claims. In effect, they challenge the propriety of defendant’s guilty plea. As such, defendant was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court in order to raise the issue on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d); see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 913 P.2d 1061 ]; cf. People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 480 P.2d 308 ]; People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1170 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.