People v. Garcia CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068091 · 2016-02-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS274445
Trial judge: Garry Haehnle
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:58Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Garcia's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding that he had not demonstrated good cause and that his counsel's representation was competent. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “The trial court found counsel's representation was competent and the record supported the 'sustained fear' element of section 422. The court denied appellant's plea withdrawal motion”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea, nor did it independently analyze the 'good cause' standard under Penal Code section 1018 in detail. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders review process to determine that no reasonably arguable issues existed, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without a detailed substantive analysis of the specific legal standard for withdrawal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 — It is the defendant's burden to produce evidence of good cause by clear and convincing evidence to withdraw a guilty plea.
relied: People v. Nance (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1453 — It is the defendant's burden to produce evidence of good cause by clear and convincing evidence to withdraw a guilty plea.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented, and the court must independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel may file a brief identifying possible but not arguable issues and request the court to review the record for error.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether a conflict of interest exists between the defendant and their attorney.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying that no arguable issues were presented. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to explicitly apply the 'good cause' standard from Wharton and Nance to the specific facts of the plea withdrawal motion, relying instead on a general statement that the record supported the trial court's findings.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Garcia's negotiated guilty plea to criminal threats and felon in possession with a strike admission, later denied his motion to withdraw the plea (which alleged duress and ineffective assistance for failure to advise on the "sustained fear" element of section 422), and imposed the agreed five-year-four-month term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the denial of the withdrawal motion as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's Penal Code section 1018 motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on duress and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the 'sustained fear' element of section 422 “The trial court found counsel's representation was competent and the record supported the "sustained fear" element of section 422.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion correctly recites that the defendant bears the burden of showing good cause by clear and convincing evidence (Wharton, Nance), and the quoted plea colloquy shows thorough advisements and a denial of any promises or threats, undercutting the duress claim. The ineffective-assistance theory fails on prejudice because the record (defendant racked a gun and said he would 'smoke' the victim, who promptly called 911) strongly supports sustained fear, so any failure to advise on that element was unlikely to have changed the outcome of a favorable plea bargain that dismissed a count. The court did not expressly state the abuse-of-discretion standard that governs review of a section 1018 ruling, but the result is consistent with it.
Acceptance of the negotiated guilty plea and strike admission as knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and imposition of the agreed five-year-four-month sentence “The transcript of the change of plea hearing demonstrates the trial court carefully questioned Garcia as to his understanding of his rights and the potential outcome of the conviction.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The quoted colloquy shows the court confirmed Garcia read and reviewed the form with counsel, had adequate time, understood the charges and the strike admission, was not threatened or promised anything else, and understood the agreed term; the sentence imposed (doubled midterm on count 1 plus one-third midterm doubled on count 2) matches the bargain. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable defect in the plea or sentence.

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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
relied: People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 — A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1018 must establish good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
relied: People v. Nance (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1453 — Good cause to withdraw a plea must be shown by clear and convincing evidence; mistake, ignorance, or other factors overcoming free judgment may suffice.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant seeks substitution of appointed counsel, the court must hear the defendant's reasons for dissatisfaction with counsel.
missed: People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562 — A trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the opinion did not articulate the governing standard of review.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — An appeal challenging the validity of a guilty plea, including the denial of a motion to withdraw it, requires a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5; the opinion does not state whether one was obtained.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the correct Wende/Anders framework, recited the clear-and-convincing burden for plea withdrawal, and the quoted record supports the conclusion that the plea was voluntary and that any failure to advise on 'sustained fear' was not prejudicial given the facts. It omitted the abuse-of-discretion standard of review and did not address whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for a challenge to the plea's validity, and its chronology misdescribes the March 2015 hearing as a change of plea hearing, though none of these gaps affects the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/9/16 P. v. Garcia 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, D068091

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS274445)

JOSEPH GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.

Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent. In September 2014, Joseph Garcia entered a not guilty plea to charges of making a criminal threat (count 1, Pen. Code, § 422);1 possession of a firearm by a felon (count 2, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)); and possession of ammunition (count 3, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). In a negotiated plea agreement, the court dismissed count 3, Garcia pled guilty to counts 1 and 2 and admitted one strike prior conviction. (§§ 677, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668.)

Garcia was sentenced to five years and four months in prison.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2014, appellant threatened to "smoke" Hugo Laborin, appellant's stepfather; appellant then left the residence with a firearm. Laborin called 911. Within 10 minutes, San Diego police officers arrived at Laborin's residence, arrested appellant, and conducted a search of appellant incident to his arrest. Appellant was on parole at the time and a parole violation warrant was outstanding for his arrest. A loaded handgun and 22 rounds of ammunition were found in appellant's backpack. It was later determined that the gun had been stolen.

Prior to a preliminary readiness hearing in September 2014, Garcia completed a change of plea form and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to counts 1 and 2 and admitted one strike prior conviction. The court dismissed count 3 and sentenced Garcia to an agreed five-year four-month term. During the hearing, the court questioned Garcia about his decision, knowledge of his rights, the assistance of counsel and other potential 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 consequences of his plea. After confirming appellant had not consumed any alcohol, drugs or medication in the preceding 24 hours, the following discussion took place:

"The Court: Before you initialed and signed the [change of plea] form, did you read it or have it read to you?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"The Court: You went over it with your attorney . . . ?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"The Court: Did you have enough time to spend with him?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"The Court: You understand you are pleading guilty to count 1, the criminal threats; count 2, felon in possession of a firearm; and you are admitting that you have previously been convicted of a strike?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"The Court: [D]id anybody promise you anything else or threaten you in any way to make you sign this form?"

"Garcia: No."

"The Court: And the other charges and allegations would be dismissed against you, and you'd be serving five years, four months . . . ? Is that your understanding?"

"Garcia: Yes."

Prior to sentencing, defense counsel (Anthony Hernandez) informed the court that Garcia wished to withdraw his plea and that there would be a conflict of interest if Hernandez were to bring the motion. The court then held a "Marsden" hearing, referring to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).

3 Following the Marsden hearing the trial court relieved Hernandez and Christine Basic was appointed to represent Garcia.

In January 2015, appellant filed his motion to withdraw his 2014 guilty plea on the grounds he had made the plea under duress and not freely or voluntarily, and that his counsel provided ineffective representation by not informing him of the required element of "sustained fear" regarding the criminal threat charge. (§ 422, subd. (a).) At the change of plea hearing in March 2015, the following colloquy took place:

"Defense Counsel: [Y]ou [and former defense counsel] went over the six different elements that are required for the criminal threat; right?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"Defense Counsel: And we talked about Element No. 5, whether the threat actually caused the victim to be in sustained fear; right?"

"Garcia: Yes."

"Defense Counsel: [I]f you had been advised about the . . . elements of [section] 422 at the time you took your plea, would you still have pled guilty?

"Garcia: "No, I wouldn't have."

Later during the same hearing, defense counsel stated: "Garcia wasn't aware of whether or not his stepfather was in sustained fear, and to be honest, I don't think [defendant's prior counsel] knew whether or not his stepfather was in sustained fear . . . ."

The court responded: "I honestly don't see how you can make that argument, to be honest 4 with you. . . . [Defendant] pulls a gun out, racks it, and tells [Laborin] 'I'm going to smoke you.' "

The trial court found counsel's representation was competent and the record supported the "sustained fear" element of section 422. The court denied appellant's plea withdrawal motion and Garcia was sentenced to the midterm on count 1, doubled for the strike to four years, and one-third the midterm, doubled to 16 months, on count 2, for a total term of five years and four months. Garcia filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, that person must demonstrate good cause. (§ 1018.) "It is the defendant's burden to produce evidence of good cause by clear and convincing evidence." (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 585;

People v. Nance (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1456.)

The transcript of the change of plea hearing demonstrates the trial court carefully questioned Garcia as to his understanding of his rights and the potential outcome of the conviction. There is nothing in the record to support an argument that there was a potentially meritorious basis for a motion to withdraw the plea. Counsel was entitled to make the appropriate decision on how to proceed and there is nothing in the record that might support a finding that counsel was ineffective.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

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. 5 California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to a possible but not arguable issue whether the court erred in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

We granted defendant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

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 Garcia on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P.J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Nance E007995 · 1991-12-17
People v. Wharton S004769 · 1991-04-29
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26