Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
While incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, Ahjeeb Jamal Boyd and others filed fraudulent applications for unemployment insurance benefits with California's Employment Development Department (EDD) using the names, birthdates, and social security numbers of other inmates. In May 2024, an information charged him with 10 counts of making false statements or representations to obtain unemployment benefits (Unemployment Insurance Code § 2101, subd. (a)), three counts of unlawfully conducting transactions exceeding $5,000 with intent to promote criminal activity (Pen. Code, § 186.10, subd. (a)), and two alleged strike priors.
On November 12, 2025, Boyd entered a plea agreement accepted by the trial court, pleading guilty to count 2 and admitting one prior strike. He agreed to a 48-month prison term consecutive to any other custody time and to pay restitution to EDD in the stipulated amount of $132,210, less credits to be determined at a hearing the next day; if EDD reported a lower loss, restitution would be reduced to that amount with no right to further hearing. He waived any right to appeal.
At the restitution hearing the parties agreed to a $3,921.13 credit. The trial court rejected Boyd's unsupported claim that $4,800 from EDD was COVID stimulus money and declined to credit two $5,000 cashier's checks he said CDCR had drawn, because there was no current CDCR accounting. The court ordered restitution of $128,288.87 and directed CDCR to unfreeze Boyd's inmate trust account and release $22,815.15 to EDD, joint and several with codefendants. Boyd noticed an appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. A person who pleads guilty cannot appeal the judgment without a written statement of grounds and a certificate of probable cause from the trial court (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). Because Boyd's plea included an express appeal waiver, a stipulated sentence, and a restitution order in an amount certain, his appeal necessarily attacked a term of the agreement, so a probable cause certificate was required—and he did not obtain one. The court therefore limited its Wende review to matters not affecting the validity of the plea.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, which ordinarily obligates the court to review the entire record under People v. Wende. But where a certificate of probable cause is required and missing, that review is limited. Boyd's suggestions that the restitution award lacked an evidentiary basis or included losses beyond the offense of conviction were essentially arguments that the stipulated amount was unsupported by the evidence—an attack on the plea's validity that cannot be reviewed without a certificate.
His remaining claims—that the restitution order did not comply with the plea agreement and that seized funds and credits were misapplied—made no specific claim of error. The court's limited review of matters not affecting the plea's validity revealed no arguable issue, and it affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who pleads guilty cannot appeal the judgment without a written statement showing reasonable grounds for appeal and a trial court certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5.
- When a plea bargain includes an express waiver of appeal, attempting to appeal the judgment is necessarily an attack on a term of the agreement and requires a probable cause certificate.
- Challenges to a restitution amount stipulated in the plea attack the plea's validity and cannot be reviewed without a certificate; limited Wende review then reaches only matters not affecting the plea.
- General claims that a restitution order failed to comply with the plea or that credits were misapplied, without a specific claim of error, do not reveal an arguable issue.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion applies the certificate-of-probable-cause requirement strictly where a plea contains an appeal waiver and stipulated terms, treating challenges to stipulated restitution as attacks on the plea's validity rather than independent sentencing issues. It also shows that Wende review after a guilty plea is confined to non-plea matters when no certificate was obtained, and that vague, unspecified claims of error are insufficient to establish an arguable issue on that limited review.