People v. Bolduc CA3

Filed 3/9/26 P. v. Bolduc CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101858

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2401789)

v.

JOSEPH WAYNE BOLDUC,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Wayne Bolduc appeals his conviction for making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422.)1 He contends the trial court erred in accepting his plea because the factual basis was inadequate under section 1192.5, subdivision (c), which requires that the trial court make an inquiry to ensure there is a factual basis for the plea. We conclude the factual basis is sufficient and will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant and the victim were involved in an ongoing dispute. After the victim’s most recent actions in the dispute, defendant wanted to kill the victim. He barged into the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

home of L.M., a third party, and said, “Are you going to give me a gun or do I have to do this by hand?” Defendant appeared to be in an altered state. He “looked like Satan,” his face was red, his fists and jaw clenched, and he spoke loudly and aggressively. L.M. suspected defendant had been using drugs. L.M. told defendant she did not have any guns. Defendant replied, “I guess I’ll have to do it by hand then.” Before he left L.M.’s home, defendant stated he intended to find a gun and if he could not, he would go to the victim’s house and “kill her with just his hands.” Responding to a 911 call, law enforcement officers went to both L.M.’s and the victim’s homes. The next day law enforcement officers arrested defendant and told the victim that defendant was in custody. The victim requested an emergency protective order. The victim also told the probation officer she was very fearful for her life and the safety of her children and she was requesting a no-contact criminal protective order. A complaint charged defendant with making criminal threats (§ 422) against the victim. The complaint included the name of the victim, the date of the offense, and the specific elements of the offense, including that the threat was “so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey to [the victim] a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution.” Defendant agreed to plead no contest to making criminal threats in exchange for a middle term cap of two years in prison. In the plea colloquy, defendant acknowledged he initialed the plea form indicating that he had a full opportunity to discuss the facts of the case with his attorney and the elements of the charged offense, as well as any defenses he might have. The plea form also indicated the required factual basis for the plea could be found in a police report. That police report is summarized in the pretrial release report. The trial court asked defense counsel if the pretrial release report contained a factual basis for the plea. Defense counsel stipulated that the facts “the Court is going to receive from the pretrial release report, if proven at court, could serve for the basis for the jury finding him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court also asked defendant if there was a factual