1 

Filed 4/2/14 P. v. Figel CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Placer) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

THOMAS LYNN FIGEL, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C074897 

(Super. Ct. No. 62115050) 

Defendant Thomas Lynn Figel pled no contest to grand theft of gold dust 

amalgam. Afterwards, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the 

motion, finding defendant failed to show good cause. On appeal, defendant contends he 

showed good cause by demonstrating he had been on drugs during the plea hearing and 

did not understand the court proceedings. We disagree and affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Defendant was charged with grand theft of gold dust amalgam or quicksilver. A 

settlement conference/plea hearing was held on March 7, 2013. On the day of the 
2 

hearing, defendant and his lawyer, Amber Zehrung, discussed the district attorney’s plea 

offer and the consequences of taking the deal. She went over a plea and waiver of rights 

form with him. Defendant acknowledged he understood his rights and waived them by 

initialing specified boxes. By signing the form, he acknowledged that he read it and had 

enough time to discuss it with his attorney. During their discussion, and the plea hearing 

itself, Zehrung never suspected defendant was under the influence or incapable of 

understanding the court proceedings. 

During the plea hearing, the judge himself questioned defendant regarding his 

constitutional rights. Defendant responded directly to the questions and acknowledged 

that he understood his rights and waived them. He confirmed that he and his attorney 

reviewed the plea and waiver of rights form. He pled no contest to the grand theft and 

admitted two prior prison terms. Under the plea agreement, defendant was to receive a 

sentence of four years in jail. 

Within the month, defendant submitted a motion to withdraw his no contest plea. 

He claimed he was not in his right state of mind during the plea hearing because he had 

been under the influence of methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol and was coming 

down from a high. He could not comprehend what he was admitting to, but he did not 

tell anyone he was on drugs or in any way impaired. 

The judge who heard the plea hearing presided over the hearing on the motion to 

withdraw the plea. He found the defendant not credible and Zehrung persuasive and 

denied the motion. 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to 

withdraw his plea. He contends he had good cause for withdrawal since he was not in his 

right state of mind at the time of the plea hearing and therefore did not freely exercise his 

judgment. We are not persuaded. 

I 
3 

Standard Of Review 

A motion to withdraw a plea may be granted if there is good cause. (Pen. Code, 

§ 1018.) “To establish good cause, it must be shown that defendant was operating under 

mistake, ignorance, or any other factor overcoming the exercise of his free judgment. 

[Citations.] Other factors overcoming defendant’s free judgment include inadvertence, 

fraud or duress.” (People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208.) “A plea may 

not be withdrawn simply because the defendant has changed his mind.” (People v. Nance

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

“ ‘[T]he withdrawal of such a plea rests in the sound discretion of the trial court 

and a denial may not be disturbed unless the trial court has abused its discretion.’ 

[Citation.] An appellate court will not disturb the denial of a motion unless the abuse is 

clearly demonstrated.” (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 685.) 

II 

The Trial Court Acted Within Its Discretion In Denying 

Defendant’s Motion To Withdraw His Plea 

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to 

withdraw his plea. According to defendant, he established good cause for withdrawal by 

demonstrating he had been high on methamphetamine, alcohol, and marijuana. He 

claims he was coming down from the high during the hearing, and while in this condition 

he was not in his right state of mind and could not understand the court proceedings. He 

asks us to believe he could understand the words spoken during the proceedings, and 

responded appropriately, but could not comprehend what he was admitting to. 

There is evidence in the record, however, to support the trial court’s determination 

that defendant understood the proceedings and “knowingly and intelligently” entered a 

plea of his own free will. (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 918.) Before 

the plea hearing, defendant and his attorney reviewed a plea and waiver of rights form. 

The form required him to initial boxes indicating he understood and waived specified 
4 

rights. By signing the form, he acknowledged that he had read it and had enough time to 

discuss it with his attorney. 

At the plea hearing, the judge asked defendant if he understood the proceedings 

and his rights. Defendant repeatedly affirmed he understood. There was no indication he 

was confused or unaware of his situation nor did he mention he was high or feeling ill. 

The sole evidence in favor of defendant was his own, self-serving testimony, given 

at the motion to withdraw hearing, which directly contradicted his previous statements. 

The judge did not find defendant’s testimony credible. “It is entirely within the trial 

court’s discretion to consider its own observations of the defendant in ruling on such a 

motion. [Citation.] The court may also take into account the defendant’s credibility and 

his interest in the outcome of the proceedings.” (People v. Ravaux, supra, 142 

Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) Here, the same judge presided over both hearings and was able to 

observe and compare defendant’s behavior. It was within his discretion to discount 

defendant’s testimony. 

Zehrung testified that at no time before or during the plea hearing did she suspect 

defendant was under the influence or incapable of understanding what was going on in 

court. The judge found her testimony to be credible and persuasive. 

Defendant argues that “[t]he question in this case becomes whether substantial 

justice would have been accomplished or defeated by the granting of his motion to 

withdraw his plea.” For support, defendant cites two cases. Both cases involve granting 

a continuance, not withdrawing a plea. (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900; People 

v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953.) One of the cases (Beeler) does not even mention 

substantial justice. 

Substantial justice is not the test used to grant a motion to withdraw a plea; good 

cause is. (See Pen. Code, § 1018.) Given that the trial judge chose not to believe 

defendant’s testimony, no good cause was shown. Defendant was given a choice, in 

court, represented by an attorney. He cannot change his mind later because he does not 
5 

like the consequences of his decision. The trial court acted well within its discretion 

when it denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 ROBIE , Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

 MAURO , J. 

 HOCH , J.