Court Opinion

ID: 9951139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 17:03:19.446665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:17.510990
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Cruz 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081719

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF2103725)

 CHRISTIAN IVAN CRUZ,                                                    OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Martin Kassman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       On October 5, 2021, an information charged defendant and appellant Christian

Ivan Cruz with lewd and lascivious acts on a child under age 14 by force, violence,

duress, menace, and fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury under Penal Code1

section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 1, 2), and sexual penetration on a child under age

14 and seven or more years younger than defendant by force, violence, duress, menace,

and threat under section 289, subdivision (a) (counts 3, 4).

       On August 18, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled

guilty to counts 1 and 2, in exchange for a sentence of 20 years in prison (10 years for

each count), and a dismissal of counts 3 and 4.

       At the sentencing hearing on July 12, 2023, defendant filed a motion to withdraw

his guilty plea. The prosecutor waived notice of the motion and argued:

       “Your Honor, I believe that—it’s my understanding and my recollection that the

defendant was properly advised by the Court at the time of the plea. I will defer to

defense counsel. But based on my experience with defense counsel, I believe that the

defendant was also properly advised of the consequences of his plea. Based on his

motion, it appears to be the equivalent of what is commonly called buyer’s remorse.

       “In this particular case, defense counsel and I went back and forth for quite a few

times prior to the plea negotiating the actual amount of time. And the agreed-upon

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

                                             2
amount of time was for two counts of 288, subsection (b), which would equate to 20

years.

         “I did have [a] conversation with defense counsel that if there was not a plea, we

had—I had the intention o[f] amending the Information to conform to the proof at the

preliminary hearing, which would have added additional counts amounting to

approximately 70 years to life.

         “So that was all in contemplation. I believe that the conversations between the

defense counsel and I were thorough, and when we agreed upon a final disposition at the

time of the plea, if my memory serves me correctly there did not appear to be any

hesitation on behalf of the defendant.”

         Defense counsel submitted. The trial court then stated:

         “I have reviewed the following things: I have read the motion. I have also

reviewed the Court’s own records in this case. First I looked at the minutes of the August

18, 2022, entry of plea, which occurred at the trial readiness conference. In order to be—

I wanted to be informed as to whether or not a Spanish language interpreter was provided

for the defendant on that date, and that is in fact true, which is consistent with the felony

plea form. And when I look at the plea form, I do see that the plea form has been

executed by the district attorney, the defendant, [defense counsel], and the Spanish

interpreter who is listed within the minutes.

         “The minutes do reflect the judge made a finding that the defendant had knowing,

intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his rights and he entered his pleas. The

nature of the declaration does not indicate ignorance. In fact, it indicates an awareness of

                                                3
what he was facing and essentially says that he was coerced into it by the danger of going

forward with the trial.

       “What I mean by that is he was aware that he could be facing life in prison, and he

took a disposition that resulted in 20 years, a determinative sentence. There is even a

handwritten portion of the declaration that says: My attorney told me that it was the best

for me to sign this plea agreement, that I did not go to trial; I would be given 70 years.

       “Given all of the things that are articulated here, there is not an expression of

ignorance of the possible consequences. There is only what [the prosecutor] has properly

referred to as essentially buyer’s remorse.

       “He does articulate that he’s completely not guilty and he admitted because he was

afraid of the potential consequences, but that is not—that is not a good cause to withdraw

the plea. So the motion to withdraw based on that is denied at this time.”

       Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant pursuant to the terms of the plea

agreement for a total prison term of 20 years and dismissed counts 3 and 4.

       On the same day, defendant filed his notice of appeal with a request for a

certificate of probable cause. The trial court granted defendant’s request two days later,

July 14, 2023.

                                STATEMENT OF FACTS

       At the change-of-plea hearing on August 18, 2022, the trial court asked for the

factual basis of the guilty plea. The following ensued:

       “[PROSECUTOR]: [Defendant], as to Count 1, the violation of Penal Code

section 288(b)(6), [Count 1] one as a felony, do you admit that you in fact willfully and

                                              4
unlawfully and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act upon the body and certain

body parts of who is known as Jane Doe, with the initials of M. as in “Mary,” C., a child

. . . under the age of 14 years old, by use of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear of

immediate and unlawful bodily injury with the intent of arousing, appealing to, gratifying

the lust, passions, and sexual desires of yourself and that child, on or about June 1st of

2021 in the county of . . . county of Riverside?

       “THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

       “[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you. And as to Count 2, for the same violation, Penal

Code section 288(b)(1) as a felony, do you admit that you committed the same act, on

August 27th of 2001 [sic], against the victim Jane Doe with the initials of M.C., who is a

child under the age of 14 years, by use of force, violence, duress, menace and fear, of

immediate and unlawful bodily injury with the intent of arousing appealing to, and

gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of yourself and that child?

       “THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

       “THE COURT: Court finds a factual basis for the two counts.”

                                       DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. 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 setting forth a

statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has

requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders,

counsel identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for

                                               5
error: “Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied [defendant]’s motion

to withdraw his guilty plea.”

       After defense counsel filed a brief under Wende, supra, we offered defendant an

opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

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

independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                        DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                        MILLER
                                                                               Acting P. J.

We concur:

RAPHAEL
                                   J.

MENETREZ
                                   J.

                                             6