People v. Garfield CA5

California Court of Appeal Jan 8, 2014 No. F066818Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea because he failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that his prior counsel was ineffective or that newly discovered witness testimony was material.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether the defendant established that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to locate potential witnesses.
Whether the defendant provided clear and convincing evidence that newly discovered witness testimony was material and exonerating.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.”

“To establish good cause, a defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his plea was the result of mistake, ignorance, or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment.”

“The absence of a declaration suggests the testimony was, perhaps, fabricated, or D.P. was not willing to testify.”

Filed 1/8/14 P. v. Garfield 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066818 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PCF254693) v.

DAVID LUIS GARFIELD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Elisabeth Krant, Judge. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Hoff, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and J. Robert Jibson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- David Luis Garfield was charged with several crimes in a 10-count indictment that included several enhancements. He pled guilty to four counts and one enhancement for an agreed-upon term of 14 years in prison. Before sentencing, Garcia moved to withdraw his plea, asserting newly discovered evidence provided good cause for doing so within the meaning of Penal Code section 1018.1 The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Garcia to the agreed term. Garcia argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Garfield was charged with two counts of robbery (§ 211), two counts of conspiracy to commit a robbery (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of sale (id., § 11378), evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). One count of robbery, conspiracy, and assault with a firearm arose out of an incident that occurred on July 5, 2011. The second count of robbery, conspiracy, and assault with a firearm arouse out of an incident that occurred on July 7, 2011. The transportation, possession, evading, and receiving stolen property charges arose out of the pursuit and arrest of Garfield as he was trying to escape following the July 7, 2011, robbery. A large quantity of methamphetamine and money from the second robbery was found in his possession when he was apprehended. The two 1All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

People v. Garfield CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief