Can a motion to withdraw a guilty plea be considered within rule 31(d)?

[162 Cal.App.3d 1151] It could be argued that the admission of use of a firearm was after the plea of guilty to robbery (by a few seconds), and therefore an appeal regarding the validity or truth of that admission would be within the exception stated in rule 31(d). A similar contention regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was rejected in People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63-64, 92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308.

Section 1237.5 applies to a judgment of conviction after a "plea of guilty or nolo contendere." At issue here is the validity or truth of a "use" allegation. A technical, literal argument could be made that defendants do not "plead guilty" to enhancement allegations, they "admit" them. We can see no reason to draw such a fine distinction regarding the words used. Appellant's attack goes to his guilt or innocence, the truth of the alleged enhancement, and would require consideration of evidence. Such issues have been removed from consideration by the plea and admission. (Cf. People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 908-910, 158 Cal.Rptr. 425.) Absent compliance with 1237.5, an appeal attacking a sentence as disproportionate was rejected because it would require consideration of the facts of the case. (People v. Sabados (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 691, 694-695, 206 Cal.Rptr. 799.) An appeal claiming defendant had not in fact admitted a prior prison term alleged as an enhancement of sentence was held to be barred by section 1237.5. (People v. Williams (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 507, 511-512, 163 Cal.Rptr. 169.) By similar reasoning, we conclude that an appeal which questions proceedings before appellant's admission of the use of a firearm must comply with section 1237.5. ³

[162 Cal.App.3d 1152] Even if appellant had sought and obtained a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, the contention urged could not be reviewed on an appeal after a plea of guilty. A guilty plea admits all matters essential to the conviction, and the only matters reviewable on appeal are those based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872; 1237.5.)