People v. Mercado CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 2026 No. F089369Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding that the defendant forfeited his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move to withdraw his plea in the trial court and that the claim lacked merit regardless.

Issues

Whether the defendant's claim that his plea was invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable on appeal despite his failure to move to withdraw the plea in the trial court.
Whether a failure to advise a defendant regarding the limitation on good-time or work-time credits constitutes a valid basis to set aside a guilty plea.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s failure to move the trial court forfeits any appeal on this basis.”

“Having further independently reviewed the record in this matter, we are satisfied that no arguable claims of error exist”

Filed 3/23/26 P. v. Mercado CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F089369 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23901818) v.

ADRIAN JAY MERCADO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gabriel L. Brickey, Judge. Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Adrian Jay Mercado was sentenced to four years four months in custody following a plea bargain in which defendant pleaded no contest to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury to another person, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (g). Defendant’s appellate counsel raises no claims of error in briefing here, and requests that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant did not file any supplemental letter or briefing with this court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint in this matter alleged that, on or about February 5, 2023, defendant caused injury while driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The complaint alleged six counts against defendant, including: driving under the influence and causing injury (count 1; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (g)); driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08 percent and causing injury (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); driving under the influence and causing injury (count 3; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); driving with a suspended license and causing bodily injury (count 4; Veh. Code, § 14601.4, subd. (a)); driving with a license suspended for a prior driving under the influence (DUI) conviction (count 5; Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)); and driving with a blood-alcohol level higher than 0.01 percent while on probation (count 6; Veh. Code, § 23154, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)),1 having a prior DUI conviction within the last 10 years (Veh. Code, § 23560), and having a blood-alcohol level higher than 0.15 percent (Veh. Code, § 23578) in connection with counts 1 through 3. Additionally, the complaint alleged several aggravating factors pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.4212 in

People v. Mercado CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief