People v. Quiroz CA4/1

Filed 4/11/25 P. v. Quiroz CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084001

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN417516)

GABRIEL JOSEPH QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under the appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Hilton and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Gabriel Joseph Quiroz pleaded guilty to five counts of committing forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1), admitted to three aggravating factors, and stipulated that each count was a separate act with the same victim under subdivision (d) of Penal Code section 667.6 and Rule 4.426 of the California Rules of Court. Consequently, he was subject to five upper term consecutive sentences of 10 years each. (Penal Code, § 667.6, subd. (d).) In exchange for the dismissal of the 23 other charges pending in the case, Quiroz stipulated to a sentence of 50 years, which the trial court imposed. The sentencing hearing proceeded smoothly until the very end. Quiroz’s attorney began by confirming that there was no legal cause for sentencing not to go forward, and the judge announced his intention to impose a 50-year term. Because the parties stipulated to Quiroz’s sentence, other than the People reading a statement from the victim, neither party requested to be heard. But after the court pronounced sentence, and just before the hearing was about to end, Quiroz’s attorney stated that she had just been told for the first time that her client wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. This appeal concerns what happened—and did not happen—next. The reasons for Quiroz’s late request were neither voluntarily disclosed by his attorney nor inquired into by the court. For the court’s part, it invited the prosecutor to agree to a continuance so that Quiroz could file a written motion to withdraw his plea. After she declined, the judge told Quiroz that