People v. Owens CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066368 · 2015-05-01 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE333134
Trial judge: John M. Thompson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:17Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and imposed a nine-year prison sentence, the maximum allowed under the plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings and no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw nolo contendere plea “The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and in imposing a sentence of nine years.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion based on the evidence that the plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly. The court relied on the testimony from the defendant and his original attorney regarding the plea negotiations and the defendant's understanding of the consequences.
Imposition of nine-year sentence “The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and in imposing a sentence of nine years.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's imposition of a nine-year sentence, which was the upper limit of the plea agreement. The court found that the defendant had agreed to a sentence not to exceed nine years and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing that sentence.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must review the record for error and file a brief if no arguable issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel must file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request leave to withdraw if none are found.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and the imposition of the sentence. The court relies on the record evidence, including testimony from the defendant and his original attorney, to support its conclusion that the plea was voluntary and the sentence was within the agreed-upon range.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Owens's no-contest plea to robbery and assault with a deadly weapon with admitted priors, denied his motion to withdraw the plea after an evidentiary hearing, and sentenced him to nine years, the lid under the plea agreement. On a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Owens's pro. per. arguments about the undated, un-fingerprinted plea form and his claim to a seven-year-eight-month sentence, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw no-contest plea (Pen. Code § 1018) “The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and in imposing a sentence of nine years.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The trial judge heard testimony from Owens and original counsel, personally recalled the plea colloquy, and made a credibility-based finding that Owens knowingly chose the nine-year lid over the risk of a life sentence at trial. Abuse of discretion is the correct standard for a § 1018 ruling and the record described supports the finding, though the opinion cites no authority for the standard or the clear-and-convincing burden.
Validity of plea despite undated signatures and missing fingerprint on change of plea form “This conclusion is not altered by the fact he did not date the change of plea form and his fingerprint is not placed on page 3 of the form.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The form is not the plea; the plea was taken in open court with advisements and waivers reflected in the minutes and transcript. Clerical omissions on the form do not undermine a plea that the transcript shows was knowing and voluntary.
Imposition of nine-year sentence rather than seven years eight months referenced at Marsden hearing “Although appellant correctly points out that during the Marsden hearing the court referenced both a nine-year sentence and a seven-year eight-month sentence, appellant's argument fails.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The seven-year-eight-month offer was withdrawn by the prosecutor before trial and never accepted; the plea Owens actually entered was for a lid of nine years. A judge's passing reference to the earlier offer at a Marsden hearing creates no entitlement to it, and nine years was within the agreed lid.
Independent Wende/Anders review of the record for arguable issues, including plea advisements and waiver of rights “has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court identified the possible issues flagged by counsel, addressed the defendant's supplemental brief, and reviewed the record as Wende requires. Nothing in the described record suggests an unaddressed arguable issue, though the opinion does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for the plea-validity challenges.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed 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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant appealing after a guilty or no-contest plea must obtain a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 to raise issues going to the validity of the plea; the requirement is to be applied strictly.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct abuse-of-discretion standard to the § 1018 ruling, correctly treats the open-court colloquy rather than the form as controlling, and sensibly rejects the claim to a withdrawn plea offer. It does not state whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained before addressing plea-validity issues, and cites no authority beyond Wende and Anders, leaving minor gaps in an otherwise defensible result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/1/15 P. v. Owens 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, D066368

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE333134)

WILLIAM LEROY OWENS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M.

Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; William Leroy Owens, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

William Owens pled nolo contendere to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), a serious felony within the meaning of 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). He also admitted he had personally used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery and had suffered seven no-probation priors; two prison priors; two strike priors (a 2009 robbery and a 2001 robbery adjudication as a juvenile) and a serious felony prior (the 2009 robbery).

The court struck the various enhancement allegations except for the 2009 serious felony prior and strike prior, and sentenced Owens to nine years in prison (double the low term of two years for the robbery plus five years for the serious prior felony). The court also imposed, but stayed, a concurrent three-year midterm sentence for the assault with a deadly weapon conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2013, a loss prevention associate at Walmart observed Owen pushing a shopping cart inside the store. Because Owens was loudly cursing at someone while talking on a cell phone, he decided to watch Owens. The loss prevention officer observed Owens select food items, a child's scooter and helmet from different locations within the store and place those items in the shopping cart. As he continued watching Owens, he saw him place the merchandize into Walmart shopping bags that were already in the cart.

As the loss prevention associate, pushing an empty shopping cart, approached Owens, he noticed Owens was holding an ax and appeared as if he were "about to swing it." The loss prevention officer backed up and pushed his cart towards Owens. At that 2 point, Owens put the ax in his cart, grabbed some bags that were in the cart and ran out of the store.

Owens was arraigned and held to answer on a felony complaint charging the same crimes, enhancements and prior allegations to which he ultimately entered a plea of no contest. On October 16, Owens and his attorney attended a readiness conference where a seven-year eight-month plea agreement was discussed, but not finalized, and the trial date confirmed. On October 24, the court conducted a Marsden hearing at Owens's request and denied the motion. Four days later, Owens and his attorney discussed the proposed plea agreement and completed a change of plea form premised on the seven-year eight- month offer.

As the October 30 trial date approached, the prosecutor informed Owens's counsel the offer was "no longer on the table." On October 30, Owens entered a nolo contendere plea to the charges, enhancements, and priors noted above and agreed he was doing so in exchange for the court's commitment to impose a sentence not to exceed nine years. On December 2, the date originally set for sentencing, the court granted defendant's second Marsden motion and appointed new counsel.

New counsel filed a motion to withdraw Owens's no-contest plea, contending that Owens's original attorney had pressured him to enter the plea, he was in a state of despair when he entered the plea, and his attorney had told him he could "take the plea back at any time . . . before sentencing.

3 Both Owens and his original attorney testified. The court denied the motion, noting he specifically recalled the change of plea hearing and observing, "The pleadings, the change of plea soliloquy, the discussions we had, the history of the case, leads me to the . . . inescapable conclusion, that when Mr. Owens appeared before me in Department 11 for trial, that the People's position being we are going . . . for life on this case, led Mr.

Owens to the conclusion, as bad as the nine was, it was a hell of a lot better than the downside of going to trial."

The court then imposed a nine-year prison sentence, the upper limit under the plea agreement.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the factual and procedural history of the case. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) whether appellant was properly advised of the consequences of entering a no-contest plea; (2) whether he was advised of his constitutional rights and waived them before he entered a no-contest plea; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing.

We granted Owens permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has done so and has raised two issues.

4 First, he challenges the change of plea form because neither he, nor his attorney, "confirmed" their signatures by dating the form and he did not provide a fingerprint to "confirm" his agreement with the change of plea. The arguments have no merit. The court minutes, the transcript of the change of plea hearing and the transcript of the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea make clear he entered the plea freely and voluntarily, he understood the terms and consequences of the plea, and he was advised of and waived his constitutional rights when he entered the plea in open court on October 30. This conclusion is not altered by the fact he did not date the change of plea form and his fingerprint is not placed on page 3 of the form.

Second, relying on statements the judge made at the second Marsden hearing, Owens asserts that he was entitled to a sentence of seven years eight months instead of nine years. Although appellant correctly points out that during the Marsden hearing the court referenced both a nine-year sentence and a seven-year eight-month sentence, appellant's argument fails. In granting the Marsden request, the court noted that appellant's original counsel had done "a tremendous job in negotiating the plea where he did" but because there was "an irreparable problem between Mr. Owens and his current counsel," he concluded it appropriate to appoint new counsel who would be given the opportunity to file a motion to withdraw the plea.

At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, the court heard testimony concerning several matters including the history of plea negotiations in this case, the details of Owens's change of plea hearing, and Owens's claim his attorney misled him and 5 pressured him to enter the no-contest plea. The hearing also included testimony from appellant's original counsel explaining his investigation of the case, including review of a videotape of the incident, and his ultimate assessment that going to trial carried a substantial risk of appellant being convicted of all charges and receiving a sentence far in excess of nine years. Based on the evidence presented, the court denied Owens's motion to withdraw his plea, concluding Owens had voluntarily and knowingly entered a plea of no contest in return for a sentence not to exceed nine years. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and in imposing a sentence of nine years.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Owens on appeal.

6 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

MCDONALD, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12