People v. Stiles CA4/2

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 11, 2021
DocketE076002
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Stiles CA4/2 (People v. Stiles CA4/2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Stiles CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Filed 5/11/21 P. v. Stiles CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E076002

v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB20000237)

BRUCE EDWARD STILES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Donna G. Garza,

Judge. Affirmed.

Bruce Edward Stiles, in pro. per; and Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On August 31, 2020, Bruce Edward Stiles withdrew his plea of not guilty and,

pursuant to a plea bargain, pled no contest to one felony count of failure to update his

registration as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.012 (undesignated statutory

citations are to this code). The court pronounced judgment at the same hearing,

1 sentencing Stiles to the low term of one year and four months in state prison, pursuant to

the plea bargain. On a subsequent date not identified in the record, Stiles moved to

withdraw his plea. On October 8, 2020, the trial court denied the motion as untimely and

lacking any legal basis.

On October 26, 2020, Stiles filed a notice of appeal stating that he appealed from a

judgment or order entered on August 31, 2020. He did not seek a certificate of probable

cause under section 1237.5. On his notice of appeal, he checked the box indicating that

his “appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not

affect the validity of the plea.” The clerk of the superior court accordingly did not mark

his notice of appeal as “Inoperative.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3).)

We appointed counsel to represent Stiles on appeal. After examination of the

record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the

record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified

Stiles and gave him an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done

so.

Stiles’s supplemental brief essentially argues that he is innocent, and the brief does

not raise any issues concerning postplea matters that do not affect the plea’s validity. We

consequently cannot consider the arguments raised in the supplemental brief, because

Stiles did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule

8.304(b)(5) [if the notice of appeal states that the appeal is based on postplea matters not

affecting the plea’s validity, then “the reviewing court will not consider any issue

affecting the validity of the plea unless” the defendant obtains a certificate of probable

2 cause].) We also cannot review the order denying Stiles’s motion to withdraw his plea,

because it is not appealable. (§ 1018 [motion to withdraw plea must be brought before

judgment]; People v. Miranda (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1134 [deadline for motion

to withdraw plea is jurisdictional]; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208

[when trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant postjudgment motion, denial of motion does

not affect substantial rights and hence is not an appealable postjudgment order under

section 1237].)

Limiting our review to postplea matters that do not affect the plea’s validity, we

have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Stiles’s counsel has complied with

his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th

106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

FIELDS Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Wende
600 P.2d 1071 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Turrin
176 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
People v. Miranda
20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
People v. Kelly
146 P.3d 547 (California Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Stiles CA4/2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stiles-ca42-calctapp-2021.