People v. Iuli CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD261791
- Trial judge
- Michael S. Groch
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding he failed to demonstrate good cause by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“We are satisfied the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding no abuse of discretion because the defendant failed to meet the burden of proving good cause by clear and convincing evidence, specifically lacking personal testimony regarding his state of mind at the time of the plea. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Archer (2012) 230 Cal.App.4th 693 — A trial court may allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1018 for good cause shown by clear and convincing evidence; the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091 — Where a defendant claims a mistake of fact exists, the defendant must show that absent the mistake the person would not have accepted the plea bargain.
- relied: People v. Kunes (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1438 — Where a defendant claims a mistake of fact exists, the defendant must show that absent the mistake the person would not have accepted the plea bargain.
- relied: People v. McCary (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1 — Distinguished on facts; involved ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to determine the inapplicability of an alleged enhancement, not a simple mistake of fact regarding injury severity.
- relied: People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501 — Distinguished on facts; involved the prosecution's failure to turn over exculpatory information, not a situation where full disclosure occurred but the defendant misunderstood the nature of the injury.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the established legal standard for withdrawing a guilty plea (good cause by clear and convincing evidence) and properly distinguishes the authorities cited by the appellant based on their specific factual contexts (ineffective assistance and Brady violations vs. mistake of fact). It also correctly notes the absence of direct evidence from the defendant regarding his state of mind, which is critical to establishing the 'mistake' element.
The trial court denied Iuli's section 1018 motion to withdraw his guilty plea to battery with serious bodily injury (and his motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor), then placed him on five years' formal probation with 160 days in jail. The Court of Appeal held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Iuli failed to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence that his plea was the product of a mistake of fact about the victim's injuries, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea under Penal Code section 1018 based on claimed mistake of fact regarding whether the victim's upper or lower jaw was broken“After reviewing the record, we are satisfied Iuli did not demonstrate good cause by clear and convincing evidence that his plea was a product of mistake. We will find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Section 1018 requires the defendant to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence, and where mistake of fact is claimed, that he would not have pleaded absent the mistake (Nocelotl, Kunes). Iuli submitted no declaration or testimony about his own state of mind, only counsel's declaration; nothing was withheld by the prosecution; two witnesses described multiple blows; and the injuries indisputably satisfied the elements of the offense. The cases Iuli cited (McCary, ineffective assistance regarding an enhancement; Ramirez, undisclosed exculpatory evidence) involved distinct defects absent here. Deferential review of the trial court's finding that the burden was not met supports affirmance. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Archer (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 693 — A trial court may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea under section 1018 for good cause shown by clear and convincing evidence; a defendant may not withdraw simply because of a change of mind; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion with factual findings accepted if supported by substantial evidence.
- relied: People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091 — Where mistake of fact is claimed as grounds to withdraw a plea, the defendant must show that absent the mistake he would not have accepted the plea bargain.
- relied: People v. Kunes (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1438 — A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea for mistake must demonstrate that but for the mistake he would not have entered the plea.
- relied: People v. McCary (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1 — Cited by appellant and distinguished: withdrawal warranted where defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to determine inapplicability of an alleged enhancement.
- relied: People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501 — Cited by appellant and distinguished: withdrawal warranted where the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory information before the plea.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the correct section 1018 standard (good cause by clear and convincing evidence, reviewed for abuse of discretion), identified the dispositive evidentiary gap—no declaration or testimony from Iuli about his state of mind—and properly distinguished McCary and Ramirez as involving ineffective assistance and nondisclosure rather than a defendant's own post-plea reassessment. The opinion is brief and does not cite California Supreme Court authority on the standard, and misdates Archer as 2012 rather than 2014, but these gaps do not affect the soundness of the result.
Opinion
Filed 7/22/16 P. v. Iuli 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, D069418
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD261791)
DAVID TAVITA IULI, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S.
Groch, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Andrew Mestman and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Prior to the preliminary examination, David Tavita Iuli, Jr., entered a guilty plea to one count of battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 243, subd. (d)). Under the plea agreement the more serious, remaining charge and allegation were dismissed. The prosecution agreed not to oppose probation and the court indicated it would consider a 180 day "lid" on local custody as a condition of probation. The prosecution offered no opposition to reduction to a misdemeanor after two years of successful probation.
At the time of sentencing the trial court denied Iuli's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denied his motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. Thereafter the court granted him five years of formal probation, subject to 160 days in jail.
Iuli filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
After the plea, but before sentencing, the parties engaged in substantial efforts to learn the extent of the victim's injuries. At the time of the plea and in Iuli's mitigation document there was a focus on how severe the injuries were. In the meantime, the probation officer filed a report recommending 180 days in jail as a condition of probation. At about that time Iuli filed a motion to withdraw his plea. He contended in the trial court, and now on appeal, that he had been mistaken as to how severe the victim's injuries were. He contends he thought the victim had a broken lower jaw, but learned that it was the upper jaw that was broken. Thus, Iuli argues that such injury could have been caused by a single blow and therefore he might have been more likely to 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 establish a self-defense claim, notwithstanding that two witnesses said Iuli had struck the victim multiple times. The trial court found Iuli had not carried his burden to establish good cause to withdraw the plea.
After reviewing the record, we are satisfied Iuli did not demonstrate good cause by clear and convincing evidence that his plea was a product of mistake. We will find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In the early morning hours on April 11, 2015, Iuli and his friend, John Arce, got into a taxi cab for a ride home. The trip ended with a physical altercation between Iuli and the driver, Morteza Farahani.
When the driver stopped the cab, Iuli, who was angry, struck the driver in the head numerous times. As the confrontation continued, Arce and Iuli pulled the driver out of the cab by his legs. The driver hit his head on the pavement and Iuli kicked the driver in the head.
In an interview with police, Arce confirmed Iuli hit the driver from behind while the cab was still moving. Arce also said Iuli hit the driver multiple times. The driver suffered "a fractured nose and jaw."
DISCUSSION
As we have discussed, the claim Iuli made below and repeats in this court, is that he thought the term "broken jaw" referred to the lower jaw, which would have required more than a single blow to break. When he discovered it was the upper portion of the jaw, which is more fragile, that was broken he realized he could possibly construct a self- 3 defense claim based on a single blow. There are, however, some significant baselines we must consider. First, Iuli did not testify, nor did he submit a declaration as to his mental state at the time of the guilty plea. We also know the trial court had expressed the view at the time of the plea that it reserved the right to vacate the plea if at sentencing it was demonstrated that the sentence agreed to was not fair and just. It is also clear in the record nothing was withheld from the defense. The defense and the prosecution engaged in efforts following the plea to determine the exact nature of the victim's injuries, which would certainly have been a factor in sentencing. Finally, we know the probation officer recommended the maximum available local custody as a condition of probation. It is in this context that we will discuss the merits of the appeal.
A. Legal Principles In People v. Archer (2012) 230 Cal.App.4th 693, 702 (Archer), the court observed: "A trial court may allow a defendant to withdraw his or her guilty or no contest plea under section 1018 for good cause shown by clear and convincing evidence."
The court also observed, however that a defendant may not withdraw the plea simply because the person has changed his or her mind.
Where the defendant claims a mistake of fact exists, the defendant must show that absent the mistake the person would not have accepted the plea bargain. (People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1097; People v. Kunes (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1443.)
In reviewing the trial court's decision, we accept the trial court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. The trial court's decision to grant or deny the motion 4 is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Archer, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 702.)
B. Analysis The nub of this issue is that Iuli claims his guilty plea was based on a mistake of fact. If the lower jaw was broken, he would be less likely to have a self-defense theory based on a single blow. He acknowledges the blow, or blows established both battery and serious bodily injury. However, the 270-pound Iuli conceivably could have caused the injury with a single blow. He dismisses both the victim's statements and those of his companion that Iuli struck the victim multiple times. Importantly, there is no evidence in this record from Iuli. We have defense counsel's declaration, but that does not show what Iuli's state of mind might have been.
Iuli relies on two cases, among others, to the effect it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion where there has been a mistake of fact, People v. McCary (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1, 9, and People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1506-1508.
Neither case is persuasive on the facts of this case.
In People v. McCary, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 1, defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to determine the inapplicability of an alleged enhancement. In People v. Ramirez, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th 1501, the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory information. Those cases are not relevant to the analysis in this case. Here there was full disclosure, but because of the early stage at which the plea occurred, both sides were seeking more information as to injuries. Such steps were essential to how both sides would present their sentencing arguments. At base, however, 5 there is no doubt that the blow, or blows struck by Iuli caused a broken upper jaw and injury to the victim's nose, all of which plainly establishes the elements of the offense.
The trial court carefully reviewed the motion and declaration, which as we have noted, did not include anything from Iuli. The prosecution's argument based upon the timing and the probation report was that the motion was "buyer's remorse." The trial court did not make an express finding on the prosecution's argument, but did clearly state the defense did not meet its burden of showing good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
We are satisfied the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
PRAGER, J.* * Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 6
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Kunes B251272 · 2014-12-03
- People v. Archer CA2/7 B250502 · 2014-09-15
- People v. Nocelotl No. B236738 · 2012-11-20
- People v. Ramirez B186837 · 2006-08-14
- People v. McCary Crim. 13148 · 1985-03-25