People v. Alexander
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Dissent
NEEDHAM, J., Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion, except to the extent it remands the matter for Alexander to be resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill 1393 (SB 1393). (Sen. Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 667.) That issue is not properly before us, because Alexander did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
It is fundamental that an appellant who challenges the validity of his or her plea must first obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. ( People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, 913 P.2d 1061 ; Pen. Code, §…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. PanizzonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. Garcia, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. SeguraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Doe v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.