Error and/or relief
Count ten as pled created a legal impossibility requiring reversal of the trial court’s acceptance of defendant’s plea agreement.
First Holding:
A claim not presented in the opening brief and was first raised in the appellant’s reply brief is deemed waived.
Authority:
People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9
Second Holding:
Generally, a guilty or no contest plea precludes appellate consideration of issues related to guilt or innocence, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Nonetheless, a defendant may still assert that his, her, or their admission included a legal impossibility.
Authority:
People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 114
People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365
Third Holding:
The term ‘legal impossibility,’ as applied to a choate [sic] crime, is merely a catch phrase for saying that, as a matter of law, the statute under which the defendant is charged does not prohibit his, her, or their conduct. Put another way, legal impossibility exists when the facts as admitted cannot constitute the crime pled to, such as where the victim’s characteristics fall outside of the statutory definition.
Authority:
People v. Jerome (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094, 1099 [setting aside plea to oral copulation of a minor under 14 where the victim was 15]
People v. Richardson (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 360, 371-375 [setting aside no contest plea to human trafficking of a minor where victim was not a minor]
People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781 [a death certificate is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115, so it was legally impossible for the defendant to be guilty of section 115 for attempting to forge a death certificate]
Fourth Holding:
We conclude that because section 134 [essentially, falsifying a document for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose] is not one of the specifically enumerated offenses in section 653f(a) [solicitation of another to commit specified crimes] and given that the elements of a section 134 offense do not necessarily establish one of the specifically enumerated offenses, defendant’s plea to violating section 653f(a) by committing a violation of section 134 has resulted in a legal impossibility requiring reversal.
Authority:
People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784, 786