Can a waiver and plea agreement be relied upon as evidence of a waiver of the right to appeal the sentence?

Defendant asserts the above record fails to demonstrate a valid waiver of the right to appeal because he was not properly admonished regarding that right. (People v. Rosso (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 218.) This assertion is devoid of merit.

As noted previously, a trial court normally must admonish a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1022, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819

Page 861

Consideration of the foregoing principles leads us to conclude that the record in this case demonstrates an enforceable waiver of defendant's right to appeal his sentence. Even though the trial court did not admonish defendant regarding the right to appeal, the waiver and plea agreement signed by defendant and his attorney contains defendant's representations that he understood the sentence that would be imposed if he pleaded no contest, that he had discussed with his attorney both the paragraph specifying the sentence to be imposed and the paragraph containing the waiver of the right to appeal the sentence, and that he fully understood all matters set forth in the document without [913 P.2d 1071] exception. The Waiver and Plea agreement also reflects defense counsel's representation that he personally went over the document with defendant and concurred in defendant's decision to waive the rights specified in the document, as well as counsel's stipulation that the trial court could consider the document as evidence of defendant's intelligent waiver of such rights. At the court hearing, both defendant and his attorney attested to the document's valid execution. Additionally, the in-court questioning of defendant and his attorney raised no doubts as to defendant's understanding of his rights and the consequences of his no contest plea. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal the bargained sentence was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite the absence of a specific admonishment by the trial court. (People v. Castrillon, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 722, 278 Cal.Rptr. 121; cf. In re Ibarra, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 284-286, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d 980.)

People v. Rosso, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th 1001, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 218 does not support defendant's position. In that case, the reviewing court rejected the People's claim that the defendant had orally waived his appellate rights as follows: " '[The Court]: ... Have you discussed these [constitutional] rights with your attorney? [p] [Rosso]: Yes. [p] The Court: Do you understand each and every one of these rights? [p] [Rosso]: Yes,

Page 862