concurring.
I concur with the conclusion reached in the Memorandum Disposition that Briseno is entitled to an opportunity to appeal his conviction. Counsel’s failure to obtain a certifícate of probable cause prejudiced Briseno. The evidence of record shows that shortly after his sentencing Briseno desired to appeal his conviction and obtain a new trial. Prejudice is further shown by the existence of non-frivolous grounds for challenging Briseno’s conviction, namely that the failure to advise Briseno of the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In view of these factors, it is reasonably likely that Briseno would have appealed his conviction on that issue but for counsel’s failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause.