People v. Figel CA3

Filed 4/2/14 P. v. Figel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074897

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62115050)

v.

THOMAS LYNN FIGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Thomas Lynn Figel pled no contest to grand theft of gold dust amalgam. Afterwards, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion, finding defendant failed to show good cause. On appeal, defendant contends he showed good cause by demonstrating he had been on drugs during the plea hearing and did not understand the court proceedings. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with grand theft of gold dust amalgam or quicksilver. A settlement conference/plea hearing was held on March 7, 2013. On the day of the

1

hearing, defendant and his lawyer, Amber Zehrung, discussed the district attorney’s plea offer and the consequences of taking the deal. She went over a plea and waiver of rights form with him. Defendant acknowledged he understood his rights and waived them by initialing specified boxes. By signing the form, he acknowledged that he read it and had enough time to discuss it with his attorney. During their discussion, and the plea hearing itself, Zehrung never suspected defendant was under the influence or incapable of understanding the court proceedings. During the plea hearing, the judge himself questioned defendant regarding his constitutional rights. Defendant responded directly to the questions and acknowledged that he understood his rights and waived them. He confirmed that he and his attorney reviewed the plea and waiver of rights form. He pled no contest to the grand theft and admitted two prior prison terms. Under the plea agreement, defendant was to receive a sentence of four years in jail. Within the month, defendant submitted a motion to withdraw his no contest plea. He claimed he was not in his right state of mind during the plea hearing because he had been under the influence of methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol and was coming down from a high. He could not comprehend what he was admitting to, but he did not tell anyone he was on drugs or in any way impaired. The judge who heard the plea hearing presided over the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea. He found the defendant not credible and Zehrung persuasive and denied the motion. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. He contends he had good cause for withdrawal since he was not in his right state of mind at the time of the plea hearing and therefore did not freely exercise his judgment. We are not persuaded. I