People v. Garfield CA5

California Court of Appeal Jan 23, 2014 No. F066818MUnpublished

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 plea because he failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or that newly discovered evidence warranted withdrawal.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on 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.”

“It is abundantly clear the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was not clear and convincing evidence (1) the new witness was material, or (2) prior defense counsel was ineffective.”

Filed 1/23/14 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION DAVID LUIS GARFIELD, [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 8, 2014, be modified as follows:

1. On page 2, in the first paragraph of the opinion beginning “David Luis Garfield,” any references to “Garcia” within that paragraph are to be changed to “Garfield.”

There is no change in judgment.

_______________________________ Cornell, Acting P.J.

* 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.

Filed 1/8/14 (unmodified version)

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.

People v. Garfield CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief