People v. Peralta CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN319709
- Trial judge
- Richard R. Monroy
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court denied Peralta's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel and characterizing the motion as buyer's remorse, and subsequently sentenced him to two years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“The trial court ruled that Peralta's counsel "did not, in any way, provide ineffective assistance," and that Peralta's motion was a "clear example of what we refer to as buyer's remorse."” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that the record supported the trial court's determination that counsel was not ineffective and that the plea was voluntary. The court relied on the testimony of former counsel regarding the investigation and the strength of the prosecution's evidence to conclude that the plea was not the product of ineffective assistance or duress. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are presented for appeal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and inviting the court to review the record.
- relied: People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99 — Defines the three components of a Brady violation: favorable evidence, suppression by the state, and prejudice.
- relied: Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 — Establishes the constitutional requirement that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where appointed counsel presents no issues. The court correctly applies the standard for ineffective assistance and Brady claims to the specific facts presented in the supplemental brief, finding them unsupported by the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Daniel Peralta's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to residential burglary with a hot-prowl allegation, finding no ineffective assistance and characterizing the motion as buyer's remorse, and imposed the stipulated two-year prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Peralta filed a supplemental brief raising failure-to-investigate, Brady, due process, and ineffective-assistance claims, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea based on claimed duress and ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate, failure to advise of 85 percent custody and strike consequences)“The trial court ruled that Peralta's counsel "did not, in any way, provide ineffective assistance," and that Peralta's motion was a "clear example of what we refer to as buyer's remorse."” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recounts that former counsel testified to interviewing Peralta, reviewing the prosecution's evidence, speaking with witnesses and Peralta's brother, and that the plea colloquy expressly advised Peralta of the 85 percent custody requirement and the strike consequence. On that record the trial court's credibility-based finding of no ineffective assistance and no duress is supportable, though the opinion never states the governing standard (abuse of discretion under Penal Code section 1018) or the clear-and-convincing good-cause burden. |
Acceptance of the guilty plea as knowing and voluntary, including advisement of plea consequences“at the change of plea hearing, the trial court also informed Peralta that he was pleading guilty to a strike offense.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion identifies record evidence that the court advised Peralta of the 85 percent custody requirement and the strike consequence and obtained his factual admission at the plea hearing, and notes the substantial evidence of guilt and six-year exposure that made the two-year stipulated deal rational. Nothing in the opinion suggests the plea was involuntary. |
Rejection of Peralta's supplemental-brief claim of a Brady nondisclosure of the victim's domestic violence restraining order declaration“The record on appeal does not reveal whether the declaration would have been favorable to Peralta, whether it was suppressed, or whether it would have had any effect on this case.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the three-part Brady test from Letner and Tobin and found no record support for any element. The claim was raised for the first time in a supplemental brief without a record, so rejection on direct appeal is proper; a habeas petition would be the appropriate vehicle for matters outside the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Constitutional framework for appellate counsel's no-merit brief and independent appellate review of the record.
- relied: People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99 — A true Brady violation requires evidence favorable to the accused, suppression by the State, and resulting prejudice.
- relied: Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 — Prosecution's suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused violates due process.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result by independently reviewing the record, addressing each claim in the supplemental brief, and applying the correct Brady framework. It did not articulate the standard of review or the clear-and-convincing good-cause standard governing section 1018 motions to withdraw a plea, and did not note that the record-dependent Brady and investigation claims are more properly raised by habeas petition.
Opinion
Filed 11/18/14 P. v. Peralta CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065545
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN319709)
DANIEL PERALTA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R.
Monroy, Judge. Affirmed.
Charles R. Khoury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
Daniel Peralta pled guilty to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and admitted that the residence he burglarized was an inhabited dwelling house (§ 460). In addition, Peralta admitted that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Prior to sentencing, Peralta filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After a hearing, the court denied the motion to withdraw and sentenced Peralta to a stipulated sentence of two years in prison.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Peralta filed a supplemental brief seeking reversal. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, and considering the issues raised in Peralta's supplemental brief, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2013, the People filed an amended complaint charging Peralta with burglary (§ 459) (count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury 1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count 2), false imprisonment by violence menace, fraud, and deceit (§§ 236, 237) (count 3), and harassment by telephone or electronic communication (§ 653m, subd. (a)) (count 4). As to count 1, the People alleged that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling house (§ 460) and that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd.
(c)(21)).
In August 2013, the People and Peralta entered into a plea agreement. Peralta agreed to plead guilty to count 1 (burglary) (§ 459) and to admit the residential burglary (§ 460) and "hot prowl" allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The People agreed to dismiss the balance of the charges and also to dismiss another case (CN275102).2 In addition, the parties agreed that Peralta would be sentenced to two years in state prison.
The trial court held a change of plea hearing and accepted Peralta's guilty plea and admissions.3 In November 2013, the trial court granted Peralta's request to relieve his counsel and appoint new counsel for the purpose of determining whether to file a motion to withdraw his plea.
2 The probation report indicates Peralta was charged with a single count of battery (§ 242) in CN275102.
3 At the change of plea hearing, the trial court stated, "[T]he reason you are pleading guilty is . . . you entered a residential building occupied by another person with the intent to commit a felony therein. [¶] Is that what you did, sir?" Peralta responded in the affirmative. 3 In January 2014, Peralta filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his brief in support of his motion, Peralta contended that his plea was unlawful because it was entered under duress and was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. Peralta claimed that his former attorney had pressured him into pleading guilty, failed to perform an adequate investigation of the facts surrounding the charged crimes, and failed to advise him of various consequences of his plea, including that he would be required to serve 85 percent of the imposed sentence in custody and that he was pleading guilty to a strike offense. Peralta lodged his own declaration in support of these contentions.
The People filed an opposition to the motion. In their opposition, the People contended that Peralta had not established that his former counsel had provided ineffective assistance, and noted that Peralta's former counsel would testify at the hearing on the motion to withdraw regarding the investigation that he conducted in the case. The People also argued that Peralta had not established that he pled guilty under duress. The People noted that Peralta had discussed whether to plead guilty with his former counsel, and maintained that the transcript of the plea hearing demonstrated that Peralta pled guilty knowingly and voluntarily. In addition, the People noted that the trial court had specifically informed Peralta at the change of plea hearing that he would be required to serve 85 percent of the imposed sentence.4 4 Although not specifically mentioned by the People in their opposition, at the change of plea hearing, the trial court also informed Peralta that he was pleading guilty to a strike offense. 4 The trial court held a hearing on Peralta's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Peralta and his former counsel both testified concerning the circumstances surrounding Peralta's guilty plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
The trial court ruled that Peralta's counsel "did not, in any way, provide ineffective assistance," and that Peralta's motion was a "clear example of what we refer to as buyer's remorse."
At the same hearing, the trial court sentenced Peralta to the lower term of two years on count 1 (burglary) (§ 459) in accordance with the plea agreement.
Peralta filed a timely appeal. Together with his notice of appeal, Peralta filed a request for a certificate of probable cause with the trial court. In his request, Peralta indicated that he wished to seek appellate review of the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court granted the certificate of probable cause.
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Peralta an opportunity to file as supplemental brief. Peralta filed a four-page brief in which he listed the following as "possible issues:"
"My attorney failed to investigate the true facts of the case.
5 "My attorney failed to investigate witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense.
"Possible Brady [5] non-disclosure violation, with DV Declaration DVN 21511.
"Possible failure to protect my right to due process.
"Allowing me to plead guilty, even when evidence would tend to show otherwise.""
None of these claims supports reversal of the judgment. To begin with, the record on appeal does not support Peralta's contention that his former attorney failed to adequately investigate the case. Peralta's former counsel testified at the hearing on Peralta's motion to withdraw his guilty plea concerning the steps that he took in investigating the case, including interviewing Peralta, reviewing the prosecution's evidence, obtaining information from various witnesses concerning the relationship between Peralta and the victim, and speaking to Peralta's brother, who was with Peralta on the night the charged crimes were alleged to have been committed. Peralta has failed to establish that this was an inadequate investigation.
Peralta also fails to establish that the prosecution committed a Brady violation in allegedly failing to disclose a declaration filed by the victim in order to obtain a domestic violence restraining order against Peralta. The record on appeal does not reveal whether the declaration would have been favorable to Peralta, whether it was suppressed, or whether it would have had any effect on this case. Accordingly, Peralta's Brady claim 5 (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.) 6 fails. (See People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 176 [" 'There are three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.' "].) Peralta also has not demonstrated that his right to due process was violated in the trial court.
Finally, Peralta has not established that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in permitting him to plead guilty. At the hearing on Peralta's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Peralta's former counsel outlined the considerable evidence of Peralta's guilt, including the victim's anticipated testimony, evidence of the victim's injuries, and evidence that Peralta had committed other acts of domestic violence. In addition, Peralta faced a significant potential prison sentence in the event that he were to be found guilty after a trial.6 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues raised in Peralta's supplemental brief, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Peralta has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
6 The plea agreement states that Peralta faced a potential maximum sentence of six years in prison. 7 IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Letner and Tobin S015384 · 2010-07-29
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12