Is a defendant required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal from a superior court judgment after pleading guilty?

Section 1237.5 provides that, absent statutory exceptions not relevant here, "[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere." (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) [to appeal from a superior court judgment after plea of guilty or nolo contendere, defendant must file, in addition to notice of appeal, statement for issuance of a certificate of probable cause, which the superior court must rule on within 20 days after statement filed]; People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 663 [compliance with section 1237.5's requirement essential to maintain appeal challenging validity of guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere].)

Penal Code section 1237.5 is not a pointless technicality. By requiring a defendant who has pleaded guilty to obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal, section 1237.5 promotes judicial economy by weeding out frivolous guilty plea appeals. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (Mendez).) "Its assumption is that, as a general matter, a judgment of conviction entered on a defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not present any issue warranting relief on appeal, and hence should not be reviewed thereon." (Id. at p. 1097.)

Page 6

Nevertheless, a certificate of probable cause is not required when the defendant's appeal is based on search and seizure issues or grounds that arose after his plea was entered and do not affect the plea's validity. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Defendant tries to squeeze his appeal into the latter exception, arguing not so much on the validity of his underlying plea as the manner in which the trial court failed to consider his mental competency at the time of sentencing. By this argument, defendant hopes that we will overlook the stated objective of his appeal, i.e., "a complete reversal." Alternatively, defendant seeks "a limited remand" to determine whether "a retrospective competency hearing can be held."