Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Gobin CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER 

GOBIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B315920

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA120917)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Rogelio G. Delgado, Judge. Affirmed. 

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Jason Tran and Kristen J. Inberg, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

THE COURT.

Defendant and appellant Bryan Christopher Gobin appeals 

from the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his 

plea of no contest to a stalking charge. He requests this court 

“reverse the lower court’s denial of his motion and remand the 

matter to allow appellant to withdraw his plea.” 

Penal Code1 section 1018, the basis of defendant’s motion 

to withdraw his plea, provides in pertinent part: “On application 

of the defendant at any time before judgment or within six 

months after an order granting probation is made if entry of 

judgment is suspended, the court may, and in case of a defendant 

who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea the court 

shall, for a good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be 

withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. . . . This section 

shall be liberally construed to effect these objects and to promote 

justice.” (§ 1018.) 

Defendant correctly argues that a factor overcoming the 

free exercise of judgment is good cause to withdraw a plea (People 

v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566), but fails to show the trial 

court abused its discretion in concluding that defendant did not 

meet that standard. Although there was some evidence that a 

few days before his plea, defendant’s “linear” thinking was 

diminished, the trial court was not required to credit that 

testimony and there was conflicting evidence, which the trial 

court could have credited. The record supports defendant’s 

assertion that he suffered from one or more mental illnesses 

 Rothschild, P. J., Bendix, J., Weingart, J. 

1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 
3

(which the mental health court twice found did not render him 

mentally incompetent), but not his conclusion that his mental 

illness overcame his free exercise of judgment. 

We affirm the trial court’s order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2019, the People filed a complaint against 

defendant. On the same day, the trial court appointed a public 

defender to represent defendant. On October 10, 2019, the trial 

court declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competency and 

suspended proceedings. A defendant is incompetent to stand 

trial if he or she lacks a “ ‘ “ ‘ “sufficient present ability to consult 

with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational 

understanding—[or lacks] . . . a rational as well as a factual 

understanding of the proceedings against him.” ’ [Citations.]” 

[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 

1032.) On October 25, 2019, the mental health court found 

defendant mentally competent, and criminal proceedings 

resumed.

This case involved at least four different judicial officers. 

The judicial officer who denied defendant’s motion to withdraw 

his plea was not the same one who took the plea. This case also 

involved at least four defense attorneys. 

1. Information

On February 4, 2020, the People filed an information 

alleging one count of criminal threats and one count of stalking. 

Defendant’s now ex-wife was the alleged victim of both counts. 

That same day, defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts.
4

2. Defendant successfully petitions for mental health 

diversion

On February 26, 2020, defendant filed a petition to be 

placed on mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36.2 

2 Section 1001.36 provides in pertinent part: 

“(b) A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion pursuant 

to this section if both of the following criteria are met: [¶] 

(1) The defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder 

as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited 

to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or 

post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial 

personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and 

pedophilia. Evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder shall be 

provided by the defense and shall include a diagnosis or 

treatment for a diagnosed mental disorder within the last five 

years by a qualified mental health expert. In opining that a 

defendant suffers from a qualifying disorder, the qualified mental 

health expert may rely on an examination of the defendant, the 

defendant’s medical records, arrest reports, or any other relevant 

evidence.

“(2) The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant 

factor in the commission of the charged offense. If the defendant 

has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find 

that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in 

the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing 

evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or 

contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged 

offense. A court may consider any relevant and credible evidence, 

including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing 

transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s 

mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or 

reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the 
5

In the context of that motion, defendant described the facts 

underlying the charges as follows: After defendant’s ex-wife 

requested a divorce, defendant sent her 800 to 1,000 text 

messages. In one of them, defendant wrote, “If you are thinking 

of taking legal action, I will put a $100,000 on your head to make 

your life a miserable hell.” In an e-mail to another person, 

defendant “wrote about working on a bounty killer start-up and 

burning down” a city.

In the context of requesting mental health diversion, 

defendant represented that he suffers from a “bipolar 1 disorder,” 

and that his mental health symptoms that motivated his criminal 

behavior would respond to mental health treatment. 

A clinical and forensic psychologist who evaluated 

defendant reported that defendant texted his ex-wife because she 

sent a process server, which defendant believed “ ‘kicked up my

PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] response . . . .’ ” Defendant 

“admitted that he was having paranoid thoughts about his 

ex-wife.” Defendant reported having ADHD (attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder) but then also reported, “ ‘I don’t really 

think that I have ADHD. I went to a chiropractor, got an 

adjustment. I felt awesome. Happy.’ ” Defendant previously had 

received mental health treatment and, in 2018, was undergoing 

treatment for depression and anxiety, and, in 2019, he

participated in outpatient therapy. Defendant reported to the 

psychologist that he was “ ‘appalled’ ” by the text messages he 

had sent to his ex-wife. 

defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant 

mental disorder at or near the time of the offense.”
6

The psychologist concluded defendant suffered from bipolar 

disorder, with a manic episode. “He had impaired sleep, 

excessive energy, irritability, agitation, impulsive behavior, and 

pressured speech. His thoughts raced and were painful and 

intrusive. He does have an inflated sense of self—not in the 

sense that he feels better than others, but in that he interprets 

the actions of other people as being personal attacks and reacts 

accordingly. He seems to have some symptoms of thought 

disorder as well, including paranoia and somatic symptoms.” “I 

do not believe that he suffers from PTSD and I am of the opinion 

that bipolar disorder can account for his difficulties with 

maintaining concentration.”

The trial court granted defendant’s request for mental 

health diversion.

3. The trial court preliminarily revokes mental health 

diversion and defendant considers a possible plea

At a February 17, 2021 hearing, the trial court indicated 

defendant had violated the terms of his diversion multiple times. 

The court stated, “I think we need to bring him back and see 

where we’re at. I’m not saying I’m not gonna consider mental 

health diversion as an alternative, but it seems to me that he is—

his problems are too great for the relatively loose constrictions of 

mental health diversion. It may be something that has to happen 

with a probationary sentence. He has demonstrated he cannot 

comply with the terms and conditions of mental health 

diversion.”

The court recalled the matter later that day and reported 

the parties had agreed to a plea deal. Defendant completed a 

plea form indicating that the court would sentence him to five 

years of probation if he pleaded no contest to the stalking charge.
7

Defendant initialed a box on the form indicating that he was not 

suffering from any medical condition and another box indicating 

he had no additional questions in connection with the plea.

Defendant indicated he was entering the plea “freely and 

voluntarily.” Defendant further checked the box that he was 

pleading no contest to take advantage of a plea agreement.

The trial court asked defendant, “Do you want to give up 

your right to a hearing on the issue of whether your mental 

health diversion should be terminated permanently and criminal 

proceedings resumed, or do you want to waive that right, accept 

this disposition, and enter a plea in this case?” Defendant 

responded, “I understand. . . . My lawyer has been very thorough 

in explaining to me the offer that was put on the table, which is 

the same offer that was presented to me in October, 2019 before I 

spent 438 days in incarceration. I’m quite familiar with the offer 

because it was presented in October of 2019. So, yes, I’m aware 

of that.”

The court again asked if defendant “want[ed] to have a 

hearing on . . . whether I should continue your mental health 

diversion . . . .” Defendant responded, “I understand your 

question. Yes, Your Honor, I would like to answer it, and the 

answer, Your Honor, is it would be so detrimental to my physical 

and mental health to be incarcerated at this moment that you 

could charge me with murder and I would accept that.” The court 

then stated it could not take a waiver “under these kind of 

descriptions,” indicated that it did not want to leave him in 

custody and would remand him “on the bail previously indicated,” 

and preliminarily revoked mental health diversion. The court 

then put the matter over for two days. The court indicated it 
8

would proceed only if it were clear defendant’s plea was 

voluntary. 

4. Defendant pleads no contest to stalking

At the outset of the February 19, 2021 hearing, the court 

stated, “Based upon the totality of my knowledge of the case, and 

his [defendant’s] behavior during the pendency of the case, 

including his unsuccessful attempt at diversion—if he wants to 

have a hearing on the issue of diversion, as I told you, I’m 

disinclined to put him back on diversion. But if he wants a 

hearing, I’ll give him a hearing, and make a decision based on 

what I hear in the hearing.”

The court indicated that if defendant pleaded guilty or no 

contest to the stalking charge, the court would place him on 

probation for five years in addition to a 180-day sentence that 

defendant already served. The court stated, “He’ll be released 

forthwith.” The court indicated if defendant violated a term of 

probation including contacting his ex-wife or her family members, 

defendant would receive a state prison sentence. Defendant 

asked his attorney to “talk on that, please.” 

The court told defendant that defendant could accept the 

offer or the court would set the case for trial. Defendant 

responded, “I’ll accept it, Your Honor. Thank you.” The court 

instructed defense counsel to speak to defendant. Defendant and 

his counsel conferred privately. 

After conferring with defendant, defense counsel reported 

that defendant wanted to plead to the stalking charge. The court 

again inquired whether defendant wanted a hearing on mental 

health diversion, and counsel answered that defendant did not. 

The court called a recess to allow defendant to confer with 

his attorney. After the recess, defense counsel indicated that 
9

defendant “would like to proceed with the plea, Your Honor.”

Defendant stated he understood his rights to a hearing on the 

revocation of his mental health diversion and he gave up those 

rights. 

In the context of a plea colloquy with the court, defendant 

asserted he understood the charges against him. Defendant 

asserted he understood everything in the plea form and discussed 

his rights with his counsel. The court informed defendant that if 

he were to go to trial and lose, the maximum time defendant 

could be ordered to serve was three years and eight months. The 

court further detailed the terms of the sentence defendant would 

be ordered to serve if he pleaded no contest: five years felony 

probation, 180 days in custody with credit for time served, and a 

protective order so that defendant would have no contact with the 

victim or her family. The court indicated that defendant should 

have no contact with anyone who he knew would interact with 

the victim or her family. The trial court indicated that it was 

willing to agree to probation because it recognized that defendant 

had significant mental health issues. As part of probation, the 

trial court required defendant to meet with a therapist once a 

week and a psychiatrist once a month. 

Defendant asked, “What if it’s in the newspaper?” 

Defendant continued, “You know what, Your Honor? Here’s the 

thing. I’m an advocate, and I’m just sorry I can’t be an advocate. 

I can’t do this anymore. I really have some problems I need to 

deal with. I need to fess up and I need to take the time to do 

that. So I accept that. It’s very humbling to have to admit to you 

I have serious issues I need to deal with. It’s not easy to be a 

47-year-old man who lost his job at a Fortune 500 company two 
10

and a half years ago because of health issues. I accept these 

terms.” 

Defendant stated he was “pleading guilty or no contest” 

because he believed it was in his “best interests to do so.” 

Defendant pleaded no contest to felony stalking. Defense counsel 

stipulated to a factual basis based on the pre-plea report and the 

preliminary hearing. The court accepted defendant’s plea,

finding that defendant made it “freely, voluntarily entered with 

full knowledge of the consequences” and found a factual basis 

“based upon the stipulation of counsel . . . .” The court suspended 

imposition of the sentence and placed defendant on formal 

probation for five years.

The People dismissed the criminal threats charge 

“[p]ursuant to the plea remaining in full force and effect.” 

After taking the plea the court indicated, “Mr. Gobin, I 

wish you the best. I really do. You seem to be extremely 

intelligent. . . . As your lawyer has probably told you, if you do a 

good job on probation and don’t violate, you can get this charge 

reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged from your record so you 

don’t have a felony conviction.” Defendant responded, “Your 

Honor, I thank you for that mercy.” 

5. The People move to revoke defendant’s probation

In June 2021, the People filed a motion seeking revocation 

of defendant’s probation on the ground that defendant violated 

the terms of his probation by committing new crimes. The 

probation revocation request was filed in lieu of a new 

prosecution.

The court preliminarily revoked defendant’s probation. 

The court set the case for a probation violation hearing. 
11

6. Defendant moves to withdraw his no contest plea

On July 20, 2021, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea. Defendant argued that “his plea on February 19, 

2021 was a result of poor mental health care which included 

inappropriate medication management and denial of necessary 

services.” Defendant requested to withdraw his plea “[a]s a 

result of his well documented mental health issues which 

prevented him from providing knowing, intelligent voluntary 

waiver and plea in this matter.” 

At a hearing two days after defendant filed his motion to 

withdraw his plea, defendant stated, “I regret deeply . . . pleading 

guilty the first time and made that known to my attorney pretty 

much the next day, but now I’m here . . . .” Defendant expressed 

concern that while incarcerated, he could not receive treatment 

for “A.D.H.D. which affects my ability to concentrate. It affects 

my attention.”

On August 18, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on 

defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.3 At the outset, counsel 

for defendant asserted that the motion was pursuant to 

section 1018. 

Dr. Amanda Seon-Walker testified in support of defendant 

at that hearing and the People stipulated that she was an 

expert psychologist. Seon-Walker has treated defendant since 

October 2020. Seon-Walker testified, “Mr. Gobin has a lot of 

trauma. Mr. Gobin has a lot of anxiety as a result of that 

3 For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding 

that a defendant may challenge a plea, which resulted in a 

probationary sentence after the defendant violated probation and 

the parties do not contend otherwise. 
12

trauma, and whenever he’s triggered, he tends to have that 

trauma come out in very anxious ways; so he does things 

impulsively as a result of his trauma.” Seon-Walker further 

testified that defendant suffers from attention deficit and 

posttraumatic stress disorders. She opined that the 

posttraumatic stress disorder “leads to hypervigilance” and the 

attention deficit disorder leads to impulsivity. Also according to 

Seon-Walker, defendant’s trauma occurred 27 years earlier when 

defendant was hospitalized and developed a fear of “being 

unlawfully hospitalized.”

Seon-Walker also testified about her virtual session with 

defendant on February 16, 2021, the day before defendant signed 

the plea form. When she spoke to defendant on February 16, 

2021, Seon-Walker described his state as dysphoric, meaning 

that “[h]e was very down, lots of feelings of hopelessness, lots of 

feelings of sadness.” According to Seon-Walker, any time 

defendant “was to come to court, he became increasingly anxious

and increasingly distressed; and so he generally had a lot of 

anxiety and a lot of difficulty with making appropriate decisions 

prior to court.” Seon-Walker opined defendant “was impacted to 

the degree that he was unable to make a rational decision” on 

February 16, 2021. Defendant was frustrated that his case was 

not “work[ing] in his favor.” Seon-Walker also testified that on 

February 16, defendant was “oriented to person, place, time, 

situation. He knew where he was. He knew what was going 

on. . . . He was more kind of linear in his thinking at that point in 

time.”

On February 23, 2021—four days after defendant pleaded 

guilty to the stalking charge—Seon-Walker observed that 

defendant “was disorganized.” Defendant showed “difficulty 
13

sustaining attention . . . feeling restless” and reported 

“ ‘struggling with the symptoms that are causing him difficulty in 

his occupation, personal, and community arena[.]’ ” Defendant 

felt “humiliated and powerless.” Defendant reported to SeonWalker that he “wants to be able to see the beauty of the world 

and realizes that he does not have clear judgment.” Between 

February 16 and February 23, defendant “had some difficulty 

understanding issues,” which Seon-Walker attributed to the fact 

defendant was not taking a medication that “assists with . . . the 

linear thinking piece.” On February 23, 2021, Seon-Walker 

believed defendant “had an understanding of the consequences of 

his actions.”

On cross-examination, Dr. Seon-Walker testified she

thought all defendants suffer anxiety prior to court appearances. 

Dr. Seon-Walker stated that on February 16, 2021, defendant 

was “oriented and alert” and knew he was going to court the 

following day. According to Seon-Walker, on February 16th, 

defendant was able to respond to questions in a linear fashion.

On February 23, 2021, defendant told Seon-Walker what 

happened in court. Defendant understood that he could have his 

case reduced to a misdemeanor and was able to reflect about 

what happened in court. 

Defendant also testified at the hearing on his motion to 

withdraw his plea. He stated that at that time (the time of the 

hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea), his mental health 

issues were “pretty bad” because he had not had treatment for 

over two months in custody. At the time of the hearing on his 

motion to withdraw his plea, defendant had a “dreadful fog that’s 

distorting my mind’s eye, kind of clouding my perception of 

reality and thus impairing my judgment and ability to ingest and 
14

process data. I am a little bit more prone to be emotionally 

overwhelmed when I [am] rushed. I am suffering from losses and

short-term memory. My attention is not as good as it normally is. 

My concentration is impaired. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for 

stress, and my emotional well-being is not particularly good given

that I have a serious amount of pain due to two car accidents, 

and I am receiving no medication for pain while I am in custody. 

And for two or three days out of the week, I’m experiencing 

disturbing levels of anxiety and depression, and sometimes I’m 

just a bit impulsive.” Defendant testified that he was 

“emotionally distraught,” “short tempered,” “incredibly irritable,” 

and “anxious.” 

Defendant also testified that from February 17, 2021 to 

February 19, 2021 (the dates between signing the plea form and 

accepting the plea), he received no medication and was unable to 

sleep. Defendant testified that he was in county jail for those two 

days. Defendant said that he completed the plea form to “end 

this torture.” According to defendant, he had “no ability to 

reason through in a rational manner what is going to happen if I, 

you know, give away all of my rights, which, you know, I didn’t 

realize what I did until I actually started getting proper 

medication a few weeks later when I got a real psychiatrist . . . .” 

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw the 

plea. The court found no evidence that defendant was “so out of 

sorts or unable to understand the proceedings . . . .” “He had 

apparently an offer on the 17th. They gave him two days to think 

about it. He comes back and he takes it.” 
15

7. After defendant is found mentally competent, he 

admits to violating the terms of his probation

At an August 26, 2021, after the court denied his motion to 

withdraw his plea, the court held a hearing on the alleged 

probation violation. Based on defendant’s behavior during the 

proceedings, the trial court suspended the hearing and set the 

matter for a mental competency hearing. The mental health 

court found defendant competent to stand trial. On October 8, 

2021, defendant admitted to violating his probation. The trial 

court imposed the low term of 16 months for the stalking charge.4

DISCUSSION

Relying on defendant’s “mental illness brought on in part 

by his not having access to needed medications that treated his 

ADD,” defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his 

motion to withdraw his plea. We conclude the trial court acted 

within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. 

“ ‘Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a 

waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state 

criminal trial.’ [Citation.] These include the privilege against 

self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to 

confrontation.” (People v. Farwell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 295, 299.) 

When a defendant pleads guilty, “the record must demonstrate 

that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his 

constitutional trial rights.” (Id. at p. 300.) 

4 Defendant did not timely appeal from the order denying 

his motion to withdraw his plea and did not obtain a certificate of 

probable cause. This court granted him relief, and the trial court 

ultimately issued a certificate of probable cause.
16

“A court may permit a guilty or no contest plea to be 

withdrawn ‘for good cause shown,’ ” and the showing must be 

made by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Dillard (2017) 

8 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 (Dillard).) “ ‘Mistake, ignorance or any 

other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good 

cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea’ ” under section 1018, the 

statute on which defendant based his motion to withdraw his 

plea. (People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894.) “A plea 

may not be withdrawn simply because a defendant has changed 

his or her mind.” (Dillard, at p. 665.) 

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for 

abuse of discretion and defer to the trial court’s credibility 

determinations. (Dillard, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 665.) “The 

discretion exercised by a court ‘ “is not a capricious or arbitrary 

discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in 

its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion, 

to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in 

conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve 

and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.”

[Citation.] An exercise of discretion is subject to reversal on 

appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown. 

[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Perez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 

736, 742.) ‘ “ ‘ “[W]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be 

deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to 

substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’ ” ’ [Citations.]” 

(In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 641.) 

Turning to this case, defendant demonstrates no abuse of 

discretion. First, no witness testified that defendant’s mental 

illness overcame exercise of his free judgment. Seon-Walker did 

testify that defendant “was unable to make a rational decision” 
17

on February 16, 2021, the day before defendant signed the plea 

form and three days before his plea. She did not meet with him 

on the day he entered his plea. She also testified that because on 

February 16, 2021, defendant was not taking medication, he had 

“some difficulty understanding issues . . . .” 

Seon-Walker, however, contradicted her own testimony 

when she testified that on February 16, 2021, defendant “was 

able to respond . . . in a linear fashion.” Further on February 23, 

2021, when Seon-Walker met with defendant, he “was able to 

reflect about what happened in court . . . .” The trial court could 

have credited Seon-Walker’s testimony that defendant was able 

to think linearly and to reflect on the court proceedings when it 

concluded defendant failed to show by clear and convincing 

evidence good cause to withdraw his plea. 

Second, the trial court did not have to credit defendant’s 

testimony. (People v. Boyles (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 78, 82.) 

Defendant testified that he was rushed, lacked sleep, and was 

unable to reason through the consequences of giving up his rights 

because he did not receive proper medical treatment for “the 

previous months.”

There was other evidence that defendant had sufficient

time to consider the consequences of his plea and exercise his 

judgment in choosing to plead no contest, and the court was 

entitled to have credited that evidence. Defendant signed the 

plea form on February 17, 2021, expressly indicating that he was 

“not suffering from any medical condition” preventing him from 

understanding the consequences of his plea. After signing the 

form, defendant had an additional two days to consider the 

consequences of his plea with the assistance of counsel. (People v. 

Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 757 [extended period of time to 
18

consider jury waiver relevant in assessing voluntariness].) 

Defendant also reported that he was familiar with the offer 

because the People had proposed it in October 2019 and his 

attorney thoroughly explained the offer to him. 

The following evidence from the plea colloquy further 

supports the conclusion that defendant understood the plea and 

was able to exercise his judgment. Defendant indicated that he 

discussed with his attorney the charges, potential defenses, and 

possible penalties were he to lose at trial. Defendant also 

indicated that he understood the charges against him. Defendant 

told the court that he understood his right to a trial, to confront

and cross-examine witness, call defense witnesses, present 

defense evidence, issue subpoenas, as well as his right not to 

incriminate himself. Defendant reported that he read the plea 

form and understood everything in it. Defendant reported he 

discussed it with his attorney and initialed and signed the form. 

When the court asked if defendant had any additional questions 

about the form, defendant responded, “No.” Defendant 

volunteered that he had “some problems I need to deal with” and 

was accepting the terms of the plea. Defendant reported he was 

pleading no contest because he believed it was in his best interest 

to do so. 

On appeal, defendant emphasizes that at the time he 

pleaded no contest to the stalking charge, “[h]e just wanted to get 

things over with . . . .”5 The fact that it was in defendant’s 

interest to accept a plea with a suspended sentence and “get 

5 An administrator from Seon-Walker’s office observed the 

court proceedings on February 19, 2021 and reported to SeonWalker that defendant expressed the desire “to get out [of jail] 

that day.”
19

things over with” does not show that the trial court abused its 

discretion in concluding defendant’s mental illness did not 

overcome his exercise of free judgment. 

Finally, defendant’s reliance on People v. McGarvy (1943) 

61 Cal.App.2d 557 is misplaced. In McGarvy, the appellate court 

reversed an order denying a defendant’s request to withdraw a 

plea of guilty to manslaughter. McGarvy is distinguishable 

because, in contrast to this case, the defendant in McGarvy,

among other things, did not have sufficient time within which to 

discuss his case with his attorney and did not understand the 

nature of the proceedings. (Id. at p. 559.) Here, the proceedings 

were not hurried; defendant also had time to consider and 

understand his plea and to consult with his attorney. 

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.