California Court of Appeal Sep 6, 2013 No. D061766Unpublished
Filed 9/6/13 P. v.Thompson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D061766
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD235417)
JOSEPH EMMANUELL THOMPSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R.
Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Julie Feldstein Puleo for the Defendant and Appellant under appointment by the
Court of Appeal.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorneys General, William M. Wood, Ifeolu E. Hassan, Deputy Attorneys General for
the Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joseph Emmannuell Thompson pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property (Pen.
Code,1 § 496d), and now appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.
Thompson contends the court abused its discretion in denying the motion because (1) his
plea was coerced and offered as a package deal with that of his codefendant brother,
Michael Thompson;2 and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, who failed to
The trial court found "no credible evidence . . . to show good cause to allow Mr.
Thompson to withdraw his plea." We conclude that substantial evidence shows
Thompson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to the plea bargain:
Thompson indicated that he understood his rights when the court accepted the plea.
When he alleged coercion at the second hearing regarding withdrawal, he did not ask
8
about "N.O.L.T." until after signing the plea deal. Further, he did not establish that his
attorney had failed to advise him of the meaning of N.O.L.T. Accordingly, assuming
Thompson's attorney had provided ineffective assistance, Thompson cannot show
prejudice under Strickland.
"In determining whether or not a defendant who has pled guilty would have
insisted on proceeding to trial had he received competent advice, an appellate court also
may consider the probable outcome of any trial, to the extent that may be discerned." (In
re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 254.) If Thompson had elected to proceed to trial and
made out a valid claim, he could have obtained severance of his case from his brother's
case. Moreover, if Thompson had declined the plea bargain and proceeded to trial, he
likely would have been convicted of aiding and abetting the theft of the motorcycles,
based on the strong evidence against him, as noted. Finally, the record shows Thompson
recognized that his criminal history would have undermined his credibility in a trial.
Therefore, on this record, Thompson fails to persuade us that, absent his counsel's
challenged actions, it is reasonably probable Thompson would have forgone the lenient
plea agreement in favor of proceeding to trial.
9
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the record supports the finding that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently despite the defendant's claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel?
Was the defendant's plea agreement, offered as a package deal with his codefendant, unconstitutionally coercive?
Did the defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the explanation of plea terms and the negotiation process?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that substantial evidence shows Thompson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to the plea bargain”