Soriano

People v. Soriano

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 323·4 Cal. App. 4th 781·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 138·92 Daily Journal DAR 3726·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2375
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 16, 1992A054175California1,361 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In this case we hold that since a trial court’s acceptance of a negotiated plea which patently includes a legally impossible admission constitutes an act in excess of its jurisdiction, the validity of such a plea is an issue cognizable on appeal if the procedural requirements of Penal Code section 1237.5 are met.

Teodor Canias Soriano appeals from a judgment of conviction for offering a forged instrument for record, claiming his plea of nolo contendere was fatally defective.

An information charged Soriano with violating Penal Code section 115 in that he attempted to file a “forged instrument, to wit, a death certificate.” In exchange for a plea of nolo contendere, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Soriano on three years’ probation.

The parties agree that Soriano’s guilty plea was defective because a death certificate is not an “instrument” within the meaning of Penal Code section 115, i.e., a writing which transfers title to or creates a lien on real property, or gives a right to a debt or duty (Generes v. Justice Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 678, 682-684 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 222 ]). Soriano maintains he should have been charged with and would have…

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.