If a defendant raises issues that occur after the plea, can she proceed on the merits of her appeal without obtaining a certificate of probable cause?

On the other hand, if the defendant only raises issues that occur after the plea and do not affect its validity, we may reach the merits of her appeal without a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).) Thus, the crucial question here, disputed by the parties, is whether defendant's challenge to the court's failure to award custody credits is a challenge to the validity of the plea. (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 781-782.)

Generally, when the parties agree to a specific sentence, a defendant seeking to reduce that sentence on appeal is necessarily challenging the validity of the plea itself and must obtain a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73, 79.) Similarly, "a certificate of probable cause is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement" because "an attack upon an integral part of the plea agreement 'is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea ... .' " (People v. Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 678-679.)

Here, the People argue defendant waived her right to presentence custody credit as part of her plea agreement;

Page 6

defendant argues she did not.⁴ To resolve this issue, we must examine the plea agreement.

"A negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to general contract principles. [Citations.]" (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767.) The existence and scope of any waiver, therefore, " 'is approached like a question of contract interpretationto what did the parties expressly or by reasonable implication agree? [Citations.]' [Citation.]." (People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 189.)

" 'The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.] If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. [Citation.]' " (People v. Shelton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 767.) If the terms are ambiguous, the " 'mutual intention to which the courts give effect is determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract; the object, nature and subject matter of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties. [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)

Page 7