Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YA074284, James R. Brandlin, Judge.
John R. Blanchard, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal of defendant, Cheryl Christine Nero, who pled no contest to a vehicle theft charge. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant’s notice of appeal states she is challenging the denial of her motion to withdraw her no contest plea and matters occurring after she entered her plea. Her probable cause certificate issuance request was denied. We set the dismissal issue for oral argument.
The sole issue raised on appeal relates to the validity of defendant’s plea. We have no jurisdiction to consider the only issue raised in the opening brief. Defendant has failed to fully and timely comply with both Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 651; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099; People v. Way (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 733, 736.) Without a probable cause certificate, defendant cannot litigate the validity of her plea. (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8; People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 61; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 600-601; People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574-576.) Thus, as no issues have been presented over which we have jurisdiction, the dismissal motion must be granted.
There is no merit to defendant’s request that we treat the appeal as a mandate petition. This is neither an unusual case nor one presenting an important issue of law. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743-746; California Casualty Ins. Co. v. Municipal Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1413.) This is a routine appeal where defendant, with no basis to do so, checked the box on the notice of appeal referring to sentencing issues. The Attorney General does not agree to treating the case as a writ petition. Further, there is no basis for issuing a writ of mandate.
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: KRIEGLER, J., KUMAR, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.