P. v. Vaccaro CA1/1

Filed 7/26/13 P. v. Vaccaro CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A137059 ANTHONY CHRISTIAN VACCARO, (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SCR-596487)

This is an appeal from a decision by the trial court to deny defendant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea to two felonies, violations of Health & Safety Code sections 11359 (possession for sale of marijuana) and 11366.5, subdivision (a) (management of a location for the unlawful manufacture and storage of controlled substances). The trial court conducted a hearing on the issue during which time original trial counsel for defendant testified, addressing issues raised by defendant in his motion. At the end of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to set aside the no contest plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1018. We find no error in this determination and affirm the trial court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE As a result of executing several search warrants and an ongoing police investigation, seven suspects including defendant were charged in a 15-count complaint with crimes dealing with possession for sale, cultivation, and maintaining a place for the distribution of marijuana. The prosecution’s initial complaint included early resolution offers for each defendant. Defendant, represented by attorney Walter Rubenstein, pleaded not guilty on March 17, 2011.

On March 18, 2011, two of the charged codefendants entered pleas to the offer proposed by the district attorney. Codefendant Mills entered a plea to Health & Safety Code section 11358 (cultivation) and codefendant Olson pled to Health & Safety Code section 11366.5, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The proposed package deal for the remaining codefendants required defendant to plead to a violation of Health & Safety Code section 11359 for a sentence of probation, a custody sentence of 120 days in jail, destruction of equipment found in the properties, forfeiture of moneys seized under the search warrants, and no possession of marijuana during probation. On April 5, 2011, the prosecutor withdrew the package offer to the remaining codefendants. Defendant entered a time waiver and the parties continued the preliminary hearing on the case to seek resolution. By January 2012, the case had not been resolved, and was assigned to a trial attorney in the district attorney’s office. Additionally, on January 24, 2012, the prosecutor presented another package offer to remaining codefendants. The new proposal obligated defendant to plead to two felony charges, violations of Health & Safety Code sections 11359 and 11366.5, subdivision (a), with formal probation along with 180 days in county jail, and other conditions of probation. Other codefendants (Charbonneau and Timmonslee) objected to felony pleas. After meeting with the trial judge, the district attorney solicited counter-offers from defense counsel. These offers were to be presented before the scheduled preliminary hearing date of February 7, 2012. On February 3, 2012, all defendants accepted plea offers before Judge Thistlethwaite. The prosecutor acknowledged considerable time was invested in the dispositions. Codefendants Charbonneau and Lee accepted conditional felony sentences. Timmonslee and Solakian pled to misdemeanor crimes. Defendant pled no contest to Health & Safety Code sections 11359 (Count Two) and 11366.5, subdivision (a) (Count Six) for probation, with 90 days in custody or jail alternatives, and was allowed to possess with valid medical documentation, 15 marijuana plants at any one time. All remaining charges were dismissed. On May 10, 2012, defendant substituted counsel. He was now represented by the lawyer who currently is handling this appeal. On May 31, 2012, defendant made a