People v. Ayala CA6

Filed 1/23/25 P. v. Ayala CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051692 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR00283)

v.

EDGAR GARCIA AYALA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Edgar Garcia Ayala appeals from a judgment entered after pleading no contest to evading a police officer in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), and two related misdemeanor charges.1 On appeal, Ayala’s counsel has filed a brief which states the case but raises no issues, under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Ayala of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days and he has not done so. In independently reviewing the record, we find no issues that are arguable on direct appeal. I. BACKGROUND The Santa Cruz County District Attorney charged Ayala with evading a police officer with willful and wanton disregard (§ 2800.2, subd. (a)), driving with a suspended license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a)), and reckless driving (§ 23103, subd. (a)). The information

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

1

further alleged that Ayala was out on bail at the time of the charged offenses. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).) Ayala entered an open plea after the court indicated a “paper[-]commitment” sentence of 16 months in prison and agreed to release him on “intensive supervised OR” subject to GPS-monitored house arrest. The district attorney struck the out-on-bail enhancement at the time of the plea.2 Before sentencing, Ayala informed the trial court that he wished to withdraw his plea due to a purported lack of understanding of the collateral consequences. Because his trial counsel saw no basis to withdraw the plea, the court appointed separate counsel for the limited purpose of evaluating the plea. But in an in camera proceeding under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), the court separately denied Ayala’s motion to relieve his trial counsel. Separate counsel concluded there was no legal basis for Ayala to withdraw his plea. At the sentencing hearing, Ayala appeared with both trial counsel and separate counsel. Separate counsel reiterated his conclusion that there was no legal basis to withdraw the plea. Ayala disputed this conclusion and the effectiveness of separate counsel’s representation, stating that counsel paid inadequate attention to Ayala’s concerns, refused to examine his paperwork, and told him to “shut the hell up and just do what a man is supposed to do.” Ayala’s trial counsel told the court, “Mr. Ayala still is asking the [c]ourt to allow him to withdraw his plea because of a lack of understanding regarding collateral consequences at the time of this plea.”3