People v. Reyes CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 2013 No. F065761Unpublished

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 no contest plea, as the defendant failed to establish good cause or demonstrate that the alleged failure to investigate impeachment evidence rendered his plea involuntary or resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to investigate a witness's criminal history?
Did the failure to disclose impeachment evidence regarding a witness render the defendant's plea involuntary?
Is the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable on appeal when not raised in the trial court?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Reyes did not raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the trial court, he is precluded from raising it on appeal.”

Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Reyes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065761 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF140907A) v.

EDUARDO CHAVEZ REYES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. Matthew A. Siroka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous, II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

Appellant, Eduardo Chavez Reyes, pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a))1 and was sentenced to a three-year prison term. On appeal, Reyes contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. FACTS On the evening of March 3, 2012, Bakersfield police officers responded to Maria Andreas’s residence on a report of an assault with a deadly weapon. Andreas told the officers that she and Reyes had two children together and earlier that day Reyes took one with him. Earlier that evening, she and her boyfriend Julio Montufar were in her living room when they heard someone tampering with a window screen in the front of the residence. Reyes then climbed in through the window, challenged Montufar to fight, and demanded that Andreas let him take the children. Andreas refused and Reyes got a knife from the kitchen and again challenged Montufar to fight. When Reyes walked toward Montufar pointing the knife at him, Montufar grabbed the knife and took it away. Reyes then got his other child from the residence and fled with both children. Montufar told the officers that after climbing in through the window, Reyes grabbed a knife and challenged him to fight. When Montufar grabbed the knife, Reyes ran the blade across Montufar’s hand, cutting several of Montufar’s fingers. Reyes was detained and arrested that night. On March 6, 2012, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Reyes with first degree burglary (count 1/§ 460, subd. (a)); assault with a deadly weapon (count 2) with a personal use of a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)); kidnapping (count 3/§ 207, subd. (a)); and driving without a valid driver’s license (count 4/Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).

People v. Reyes CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief