Court Opinion

ID: 9905565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 18:04:42.957621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.939225
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 P. v. Diaz CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081923

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FWV21004393)

 ANTONIO DIAZ,                                                           OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Richard V. Peel,

Judge. Affirmed.

         John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                              I.

                                     INTRODUCTION

       Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Antonio Diaz pled

guilty to one count of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen.

Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5).

In exchange, the remaining charges and enhancement allegations were dismissed. After

the trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was

sentenced to a total stipulated term of 20 years in state prison.

       Defendant appeals from an order after judgment. Counsel has filed a brief under

the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of

the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief

with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we

find no error and affirm the judgment.

                                              II.

                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

       Defendant raped and sexually molested his granddaughter when she was between

the ages of six and 14 years old. The victim eventually reported the abuse when she was

21 years old after her cousin made similar allegations and her cousin was being

       1 Unless otherwise stated, all future statutory references are to the Penal Code.

       2 A summary of the factual background is taken from the probation report.

                                              2
threatened by family members not to speak with the police. During pretext phone calls

between the victim and defendant, defendant made statements indicating that the victim

wanted the sexual abuse to occur.

       On November 24, 2021, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with two

counts of sexual intercourse with a child 10 years or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a); counts 1

& 2), and four counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years

(§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3-6). As to counts 3 through 6, the complaint also alleged that

there were multiple victims within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (j)(1) and

(d).

       Following numerous continuances by the prosecutor and defendant’s retained

counsel, on February 9, 2023, the People amended the felony complaint by adding

count 7, continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5). On that same date, pursuant to a

negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 3 and 7. In return, defendant

was promised a stipulated term of 20 years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining

charges and enhancement allegations.

       Prior to pleading guilty, defendant executed a felony plea form under section 859a

with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. The trial court went over the plea form with

defendant at the February 9, 2023 hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. In

response to the trial court’s query, defendant indicated he had gone over the plea form

with his attorney with the assistance of the interpreter, he had initialed and signed the

plea form, and he understood all of his legal rights and consequences of his plea.

                                              3
Defendant indicated that he had enough time to speak with his attorney about the terms of

his plea agreement, and his counsel concurred. Because defendant indicated he had

memory issues, the trial court explicitly explained the terms of defendant’s plea

agreement, including lifetime registration as a sex offender. In response to the court’s

question of whether defendant wanted to proceed with the plea bargain agreement,

defendant stated, “Yes. That’s fine, yes.” The trial court thereafter informed defendant

of his constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty or no contest.

Defendant indicated to the court that he understood his rights, consequences of the plea,

and the plea agreement. Defendant stated he had no questions for the court and that he

was entering into the plea agreement on his own free will. Defendant’s counsel joined

with defendant in the plea agreement and the People accepted defendant’s plea. The

parties stipulated the court could consider the police reports for the factual basis for the

plea. After directly examining defendant, the court found defendant understood his plea

form, the nature of the charges, the consequences of pleading guilty, and his

constitutional rights. The court also found defendant had knowingly, intelligently, freely,

and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, and that there was a factual basis for his

plea. The court thereafter referred the case to the probation department for the

preparation of a sentencing report.

       On June 28, 2023, the date scheduled for sentencing, defendant’s retained counsel

indicated defendant did not want his services and requested counsel be appointed for

defendant. Counsel also stated that defendant wanted a better plea deal to which counsel

                                              4
explained to him was not possible. The court agreed, noting “[t]he deal [was] done,” and

unless there was good cause to withdraw the plea, the court was ready to sentence

defendant. Defendant stated that he did not want his retained counsel representing him

anymore, and wanted the court-appointed counsel to represent him. After speaking with

defendant, appointed counsel noted defendant wanted to file a motion to withdraw his

plea, claiming his retained counsel was not forthcoming as to the plea form and the

collateral consequences of the plea.

       On July 10, 2023, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw

defendant’s guilty pleas. He argued that on the day of his guilty pleas, he was not eager

to enter the pleas, was experiencing mental health issues, did not want the deal, and did

not understand what was occurring. He also claimed that his retained counsel stated the

20-year sentence would be negotiable, that he was under great pressure at the time of his

pleas, and he was confused as to the nature and consequences of his pleas.

       The trial court heard defendant’s motion on July 28, 2023. Following argument

by the parties and review of the plea hearing transcript, the trial court denied defendant’s

motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court thereafter sentenced defendant in

accordance with his plea agreement to 20 years in state prison, the upper term of eight

years on count 3 in violation of section 288, subdivision (a), and the middle term of 12

years on count 7 in violation of section 288.5 with 670 days’ credit for time served.

Defendant was ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine, an $80 court operation assessment,

                                             5
a $60 conviction assessment, and a stayed $300 parole revocation fine. He was also

ordered to register for life as a sex offender.

       On August 11, 2023, defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and request for a

certificate of probable cause. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate

of probable cause as to the motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

                                              III.

                                        DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon

examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra,

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a

summary of the facts and potential arguable issue of whether the trial court erred by

denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and requesting this court to

conduct an independent review of the record.

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he

has not done so.

       An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the

record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in

reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442;

People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see

People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

                                                  6
       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                           IV.

                                     DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                  CODRINGTON
                                                                            Acting P. J.
We concur:

FIELDS
                          J.

RAPHAEL
                          J.

                                            7