Emery

People v. Emery

Good Law
140 Cal. App. 4th 560·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 876·2006 Daily Journal DAR 7502·44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5119
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 2006C050534California2,027 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Defendant Wardell Harry Emery entered a negotiated plea of no contest to inflicting corporal injury upon his spouse and admitted personally using a deadly weapon and inflicting great bodily injury in committing the offense. Consistent with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years in state prison—the low term of two years for spousal abuse, plus three years for inflicting great bodily injury and one year for using the deadly weapon.

On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process of law by refusing to continue the sentencing hearing so defense counsel could investigate whether a ground existed for moving to withdraw defendant’s plea and admissions. Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5), we shall dismiss the appeal.

As we will explain, where an appellate challenge to the trial court’s ruling is in substance a challenge to the validity of the defendant’s plea, the appeal is subject to the requirements of Penal Code section 1237.5. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 913 P.2d 1061 ].) The appeal…

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.