Opinion ID: 2638496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court of Appeal Cases

Text: The seminal Court of Appeal case to consider the nature and scope of the inquiry required by section 1192.5 is Watts, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496. The defendant in Watts did not argue that no factual basis existed for his plea, but rather that he should be able to withdraw his plea because the trial court made no on-the-record inquiry as to the factual basis. ( Id. at p. 178, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496.) The sole reference to the factual basis came in a statement by Watts's attorney, who stated that he had advised Watts of the legal consequences of a guilty plea. ( Id. at pp. 180-181, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496.) The Watts court found this statement insufficient to meet the requirements of section 1192.5. [4] The court looked to federal case law to encourage trial courts to develop the factual basis on the record, either by asking the defendant to describe his conduct, making specific reference to grand jury or preliminary hearing transcripts, or eliciting information from the defense attorney. ( Watts, at pp. 179-180, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496, citing 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure (1969) Pleas, § 174 [procedures designed to ensure the defendant knows that his acts do constitute offense with which the defendant is charged]; Santobello v. New York (1971) 404 U.S. 257, 261, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, see also 1A Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 1999) Pleas, § 174, pp. 197-198.) Notably, Watts did not require the trial court to question the defendant personally about each element in the charged offense, nor did it require the trial court to believe that the defendant is guilty. ( Watts, at p. 180, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496; see also People v. West (1970), 3 Cal.3d 595, 608, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409.) Statements and admissions made by defense counsel or the district attorney were also adequate to establish the factual basis for the plea. ( Watts, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 180, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496, quoting Williams v. State (Fla.1975) 316 So.2d 267, 273 [We hold that the court may satisfy itself by statements and admissions made by the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecutor....].) The subsequent cases by our Courts of Appeal coalesce around the set of legal principles described in Watts. The trial court may cause a factual basis inquiry to be made of the defendant by directly questioning the defendant, or by garnering statements and admissions by his counsel. [5] ( Wilkerson, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1576, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 392.) When both parties stipulate on the record to a document, such as a police report, the factual basis requirement is met. ( People v. Enright (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 631, 634-635, 183 Cal.Rptr. 249; Watts, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 182, 136 Cal.Rptr. 496.) A summary recitation that `[t]here's a factual basis,' however, absent any other attempt by the trial court to develop a factual basis, is not adequate under the Watts standard. ( Tigner, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 435, 184 Cal.Rptr. 61.) A reference to a complaint containing a factual basis for each essential element of the crime will be sufficient under section 1192.5 to establish the factual basis for the plea. [6] (See, e.g., United States v. Corporan-Cuevas (1st Cir.2001) 244 F.3d 199, 203 [`The method by which the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge is determined may vary from case to case, depending on the complexity of the circumstances and the particular defendant. In some cases, a judge may do this by reading the indictment....']; Montoya-Camacho, supra, 644 F.2d at p. 486 [The indictment may be used for this purpose if it is factually precise and sufficiently specific to show `the accused's conduct on the occasion involved was within the ambit of that defined as criminal.'].) While the trial court is not required to develop the factual basis on the record by asking the defendant to enumerate his proscribed actions, it must otherwise ensure that some reference on the record to other factual sources is present. [7] ( Tigner, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 434-435, 184 Cal.Rptr. 61.) The factual basis required by section 1192.5 does not require more than establishing of a prima facie factual basis for the charges. [8] ( People v. Calderon (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, 283 Cal.Rptr. 833 ( Calderon ).) It is not necessary for the trial court to interrogate the defendant about possible defenses to the charged crime ( ibid. ), nor does the trial court have to be convinced of defendant's guilt. ( People v. West, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 612-613, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409; In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 940 fn. 9, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d 747 [so long as the trial court ascertains a factual basis for the plea, it may enter a plea of guilty or no contest despite the defendant's claim of innocence.].) The colloquy that took place in People v. Ivester (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 328, 338-339, 286 Cal.Rptr. 540, which the court upheld as a sufficient factual basis for the plea, is illustrative of this point. The trial judge engaged the defendant and his codefendant wife in a factual inquiry, beginning with, what did you do that makes you think you are guilty of these offenses? ( Id. at p. 338, 286 Cal.Rptr. 540.) While defendant Ivester's responses to the factual inquiry left some ambiguity as to the mental state for the charged offense, Ivester's statement that `I had a methamphetamine lab going in the residence' was held a sufficient factual basis under section 1192.5 for the plea. ( Ivester, at p. 338, 286 Cal.Rptr. 540, italics omitted.)