I dissent.
In my view compliance with section 1237.5 of the Penal Code is not required where a defendant seeks review of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to judgment. In holding otherwise, the majority repudiate, without mentioning, the plain language of People v. Delies, 69 Cal.2d 906, 910, footnote 1 [73 Cal.Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629]. The language is squarely in point and should be adhered to, and even without the language, the holding of the case cannot be reasonably distinguished. The majority’s attempt to distinguish Delies does violence to the English language and can only cause confusion to the bench and bar.
More importantly, perhaps, the majority have injected uncertainty and complexity into a matter where the procedure should be clear and settled. In People v. Ward, 66 Cal.2d 57Í [58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881], *67and People v. Delies, supra, 69 Cal.2d 906, we established a simple rule to determine whether compliance with section 1237.5 is required, namely, if the appeal related to a trial court determination occurring subsequent to the guilty plea, compliance was not required. This rule was then adopted by an amendment in 1970 to rule 31(d) of the California Rules of Court. Nevertheless the majority today tell us that a defendant who complains of a trial court determination of a motion made subsequent to the guilty plea may, notwithstanding our prior cases and the amendment to rule 31(d), still have his appeal dismissed for noncompliance with section 1237.5 depending upon the grounds of his appeal. In switching from a simple rule of the time of the trial court determination to a complex rule based on the grounds urged, the majority has injected uncertainty into a matter which should be clear and simple, the manner of perfecting an appeal.
I
Section 1237.5 of the Penal Code provides that no appeal shall be taken from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere except where the defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings and where the trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal.
Rule 31(d) of the California Rules of Court provides in part that an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall not be operative unless the defendant files the statement and the trial court files the certificate of probable cause required by section 1237.5, that the defendant’s statement shall be filed within 10 days after rendition of judgment, that where a notice of appeal is filed the court may accept the statement within 40 days of judgment, and that the trial court should execute and file within 60 days of the rendition of judgment either the certificate of probable cause or an order denying the certificate.1
In People v. Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 et seq., we held that compliance with section 1237.5 of the Penal Code was not required where the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, asserted errors in the subsequent adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. We reasoned that the primary purpose of section 1237.5 was “to prevent frivolous appeals challenging the validity of guilty pleas,” that in cases arising prior to the enactment of section 1237.5 an appeal *68from a guilty plea was limited to fundamental errors where there was no subsequent hearing while the scope of an appeal after a guilty plea where hearings on degree or punishment were held extended to such matters as sufficiency of evidence and errors in the admission of evidence, and that the right of appeal should not be limited where the appeal relates to subsequent hearings on degree or punishment or where prior to the enactment of section 1237.5 the scope of appeal extended to matters other than fundamental errors such as lack of jurisdiction.
We followed Ward in People v. Delles, supra, 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910, where the defendant pursuant to a bargain pleaded guilty and was granted probation. The trial court subsequently revoked probation and sentenced him to prison on the basis of acts committed prior to the grant of probation, and we held that compliance with section 1237.5 was not required as a condition of appeal because the defendant was not claiming that his guilty plea was invalid but that the court erred in proceedings subsequent to the plea.
In Delles, we specifically dealt with the necessity of compliance with section 1237.5 where, as in the instant case, a defendant seeks review of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. We disapproved People v. Coley, 257 Cal.App.2d 787, 791-792, 800-801 [65 Cal.Rptr. 559], insofar “as it may suggest a contrary conclusion regarding the applicability of section 1237.5 to the facts of this case,” and in a footnote pointed out that the statement in that case that compliance with section 1237.5 was necessary to review the denial of the motion to withdraw a guilty plea was dictum. (69 Cal.2d at p. 910, fn. 1.) We went on in the footnote to reason: “Both in Coley and in the instant case the defendant appealed from a judgment sentencing him to prison contrary to the terms of a plea bargain. In both cases the defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea when it became apparent that an unexpected sentence was about to be imposed. Whether the defendant challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as in Coley, or the subsequent imposition of sentence contrary to the guilty plea, as in the instant case, he is complaining of the same essential unfairness . . . and the two situations should be treated the same. In neither case does the defendant claim that his guilty plea is invalid; in both cases he ‘claims . . . that errors occurred in the proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining . . . the penalty to be imposed.’ (People v. Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d 571, 574.) Therefore, in neither case is section 1237.5 applicable.” (69 Cal.2d at p. 910, fn. 1, italics added.)
Petitioner has brought himself squarely within the Delles footnote. His motion to withdraw his guilty plea was based on the penalty proceedings *69which occurred, of course, after the plea. He is claiming that his guilty plea should be set aside in the light of the subsequent penalty proceedings. Had petitioner been committed to a narcotics hospital, he would not be in a position to claim that his plea was obtained as a result of a misrepresentation, and this ground for withdrawal of the guilty plea would not be material. As in Delles, petitioner is claiming that “ ‘errors occurred in the proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining ... the penalty to be imposed.’ ” (69 Cal.2d at p. 910, fn. 1.) Accordingly, under Delles he was not required to comply with section 1237.5, and he should be permitted a belated appeal.
In attempting to distinguish Delles, the majority tell us that “the validity of the plea [was not] in question.” But in the instant case, the majority say, the defendant is challenging the validity of the plea. In both cases, the defendant is arguing that he pleaded guilty because he understood there would be a specific disposition. If the defendant is entitled to relief in either case, the relief would be the same, to either impose judgment in accordance with the defendant’s understanding or to- permit him to withdraw the plea. We so ordered in Delles (69 Cal.2d at p. 911), and if on the appeal it were concluded that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the same order would be appropriate here.
To distinguish the situations on the basis that in one case the defendant is challenging the “validity” of his plea but in the other he is not challenging “validity” requires, in the colorful language of Justice Schauer, “a perception as keen as the eyesight attributed to Lewis Carroll’s character Alice, who in her adventures Through The Looking Glass, when asked by the King whether she could see anybody coming down the road, replied that she could see nobody and was immediately congratulated upon her eyesight by the King, who said: “I only wish I had such eyes. . . . To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it’s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!’ (Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (Rand McNally, 1932 ed.) p. 194.)” (Italics and omissions in the original.) (Medical Finance Assn. v. Allum (1937) 22 Cal. App.2d Supp. 747, 754 [66 P.2d 761].)2
*70The majority also seek to distinguish Delles on the ground that there a plea bargain with prosecuting officials was claimed, whereas in the instant case plaintiff only claims he was misled by his attorney. This distinction, if sound, relates to the merits of the appeal and not to the manner of appeal. In Delles, because of the plea bargain shown by the record, we were able to determine that the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to withdraw the guilty plea. In the instant case, the entire record is not before us; we have only a brief statement of the proceedings in the trial court; and we do not know whether there was an abuse of discretion. In both cases the general rules relating to the merits are the same. In both cases, the basis for permitting withdrawal of the guilty plea is an abuse of discretion in the light of section 1018 of the Penal Code.3
*71It would be absurd to hold that one method of perfecting an appeal is to be followed if the appeal is meritorious and another where the appeal lacks merit or is of questionable merit. Yet that is what the majority are doing when they make the necessity bf compliance with section 1237.5 depend, not on the time of the court’s ruling, but on the, facts urged in opposition to the trial court’s ruling. In determining the steps requisite to perfecting an appeal, an attorney should be permitted to look at the ruling he wishes to question, and should not be required to evaluate the merits to determine what steps he must take to perfect the appeal.
The majority also state that to hold that a defendant may avoid the requirements of section 1237.5 by moving to withdraw his plea “would be to invite such motions as a matter of course, . . .” {Ante, p. 64.) I do not believe that defendants who plead guilty are trying to obstruct the course of justice or that there is any substantial danger that large numbers of defendants who have pleaded guilty are prior to judgment contemplating methods to avoid the requirements of section 1237.5 with regard to appeals. Most such defendants are not seeking to obstruct judicial processes or they would not have pleaded guilty. A defendant who has pleaded guilty and then prior to judgment seeks to withdraw his plea is ordinarily doing so, not to obtain a procedural advantage with respect to the perfection of an appeal, but to have the trial court permit withdrawal of the guilty plea. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is properly addressed to the trial court, and where a defendant seeks to withdraw his plea prior to judgment on what he believes to be valid grounds, he should be encouraged to present the matter directly and forthwith to the trial court. It seems unrealistic to me to suggest that defendants who have pleaded guilty will present such motions prior to judgment for purposes of avoiding the requirements of section 1237.5 with respect to an appeal. They are unlikely to consider an appeal and its procedural requirements until after judgment.
II
Rule 31(d) of the California Rules of Court was amended effective January 1, 1970, to establish the basic rule that the necessity of compliance with section 1237.5 should depend upon whether the appeal relates to matters occurring after the guilty plea. The amendment reads: “If the appeal from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is based solely upon grounds alleged to have occurred *72after entry of such plea, the provisions of Section 1237.5 of the Penal Code requiring a statement by the defendant and a certificate of probable cause by the trial court are inapplicable, . . .”
Thus the Rules of Court adopted the rule established by Ward and Delies that compliance with section 1237.5 was not required where the appeal related to a trial court determination occurring subsequent to the guilty plea. This is a simple rule to follow by an attorney who seeks to perfect an appeal. He looks to the trial court determination which he seeks to question and, if it occurred subsequent to the plea, he need not comply with section 1237.5.
In procedural matters, such as perfection of an appeal, it is of great importance that the law be clear and the procedure simple. Otherwise, there , is grave danger that the just cause will be defeated by procedural technicalities and that it will be more important for the client to have an attorney with the proper writ than to have a meritorious cause of action.
Yet the majority repudiate the simple rule established by Ward and Delles in favor of a complex rule which looks, not to the time of the ruling questioned, but to the substance of the ruling. This is unfortunate because a litigant whose attorney consults the Rules of Court may proceed to file a notice of appeal without complying with section 1237.5, but in accordance with the Rules of Court, and then he will subsequently find that he is attacking “validity” in the majority’s view and should have complied with section 1237.5. Usually he will learn of his default after the 40 days for filing the statement have expired.4 I see no substantial reason to establish such traps for the unwary, to complicate the method for perfecting appeals, or to impose requirements in addition to those set forth in the Rules of Court.
I would permit a belated appeal without compliance with section 1237.5 of the Penal Code.
The 1970 amendment to rule 31(d) will be set forth and discussed hereinafter.
If there were any basis for differentiating between Delles and the instant case as to challenging the “validity” of the guilty plea the majority have differentiated in the wrong manner. A guilty plea based on a plea bargain with prosecuting officials, as in Delles, may be set aside by writ of error coram nobis; whereas the plea may not be set aside after judgment in the absence of substantial corroboration by prosecuting officials. {People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 776-777 [51 Cal.Rptr. 691, 415 P.2d 35]; People v. Wadkins, 63 Cal.2d 110, 112 et seq. [45 Cal.Rptr. 173, 403 P.2d 429].)
Accordingly, if either case is to be characterized as one where the defendant is challenging the “validity” of a guilty plea, it is not the present one but Delles where the defendant is entitled not only to relief on appeal but also to post-judgment relief.
Section 1018 of the Penal Code provides in part: “. . . On application of the defendant at any time before judgment the court may, and in case of a defendant who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea the court must, for good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. . . .
“This section shall be liberally construed to effect those objects and to promote justice." (Italics added.)
This court has repeatedly pointed out that the legislative direction of liberal construction in section 1018 of the Penal Code expressly enjoins upon the court “liberality in permitting a withdrawal of a plea of guilty before judgment . . . .” (People v. Francis, 42 Cal.2d 335, 338 [267 P.2d 8]; People v. Griggs, 17 Cal.2d 621, 624 [110 P.2d 1031]; People v. Miller, 114 Cal. 10, 16 [45 P. 986].)
Most jurisdictions, in accordance with the view expressed above, hold that an application to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely allowed where made before judgment. (22 C.J.S. § 421 (4), pp. 1154-1155.) This also is the federal view. (E.g., United States v. Stayton (3d Cir. 1969 ) 408 F.2d 559, 560 et seq,; Kadwell v. United States (9th Cir. 1963) 315 F.2d 667, 670.) A few jurisdictions have gone further and held that in-the absence of special circumstances a guilty plea may be withdrawn as a matter of right at any time prior to judgment. (McCrary v. State (i960) 215 Ga. 887 [114 S.E.2d 133, 136]; People v. Case (1954) 340 Mich. 526 [65 N.W.2d 803, 805]; People v. Anderson (1948) 321 Mich. 533 [33 N.W.2d 72, 73-74].)
As Justice Peek succinctly put the matter, “the withdrawal of a plea of guilty should not be denied in any case where it is in the least evident that the ends of justice would be subserved by permitting the defendant to plead not guilty instead; and it has been held that the least surprise or influence causing a defendant to plead guilty when he has any defense at all should be sufficient cause to permit a change of plea from guilty to not guilty. [Citations.] ‘The law seeks no unfair advantage over a defendant, but is watchful to see that the proceedings . . . shall be fairly and impartially conducted.’ (People v. Schwarz, 201 Cal. 309 [267 P. 71].) [H] .. . . No possible harm could have resulted or can result to the State by allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute a plea of not guilty. If he is innocent of the charge, as he has maintained, he ought to have a fair opportunity for a defense; otherwise, he would, under the ruling complained of, suffer a great wrong. If he is guilty, the law may still be vindicated, and the State will have an opportunity to establish that guilt under a plea of not guilty. [Citations.]” (People v. McGarvy, 61 Cal.App.2d 557, 564 [142 P.2d 92]; People v. Singh, 156 Cal.App.2d 363, 366 [319 P.2d 697]; People v. Young, 138 Cal.App.2d 425, 426-427 [291 P.2d 980]; see also People v. Wadkins, supra, 63 Cal.2d 110, 114; People v. Campos, 3 Cal.2d 15, 17 [43 P.2d 274].)
The crucial question upon appeal after denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is whether the trial court in denying the motion has abused its discretion, in view of *71the statutory rule enjoining upon it liberality in permitting a withdrawal of a plea of guilty before judgment. A number of factors may bear upon this question of abuse of discretion, and certainly misrepresentation by defense counsel as to the sentence is an important factor to be considered.
The majority suggest that the appellate court may grant relief from default in this respect, but set forth no guidelines as to when such relief should be granted. {Ante, p. 64, fn. 5.)