California Court of Appeal May 7, 2014 No. E059350Unpublished
Filed 5/7/14 P. v. Cordova CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059350
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB705057)
DENNIS CORDOVA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. David Mazurek,
Judge. Affirmed.
Helen Simkins Irza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Dennis Cordova was sentenced to time served and 24 months of
probation and ordered to pay $32,690 in restitution after pleading guilty to misdemeanor
1
theft by false pretenses. (Pen. Code, § 532, subd. (a).)1 Defendant lied to the Veteran’s
Administration about his physical disability in order to obtain free rides to medical
appointments. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for coram
nobis, in which he sought to vacate the plea agreement and withdraw his guilty plea on
the ground that the prescription medication Seroquel he was taking at the time of the plea
impaired his ability to think rationally. As discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s
ruling on the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
From 2005 to 2007, defendant received free transportation from his home in Kern
County to medical appointments at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Loma Linda.
Defendant obtained this service fraudulently by telling his doctor, and later a nurse who
called to confirm his eligibility, that he was wheelchair bound. Defendant’s medical file
documented problems with defendant’s knees and joints that would have affected his
mobility.
On December 14, 2007, the People filed a felony complaint alleging defendant
committed theft by false pretences. Defendant was arraigned on that charge on January
24, 2008 and pled not guilty.
On October 2, 2008, defense counsel expressed doubt about defendant’s
competency to stand trial and requested a section 1368 evaluation. The trial court
granted the request. On May 15, 2009, the trial court declared defendant incompetent
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
and suspended the criminal proceedings. On August 26, 2010, the trial court ordered
defendant committed to Patton State Hospital for treatment.
On May 27, 2011, the trial court found that defendant had been restored to mental
competence and reinstated the criminal proceedings.
The preliminary hearing took place on June 15, 2011. A special agent for the
Department of Veterans Affairs testified that one of defendant’s neighbors contacted his
office to report that defendant “was faking his disability and was not wheelchair bound.”
The neighbor stated defendant used crutches to get around but drove on a daily basis, was
physically active when maintaining his property, and only acted disabled when it was
time to get his free ride to medical appointments. In November 2007, the special agent
went to defendant’s home on the pretext of being a potential purchaser of the home and
observed defendant driving and moving around quickly on his crutches. The special
agent contacted the transportation manager for Loma Linda Hospital, who found that
defendant had received 97 trips to and from the VA hospital between October 2005 and
November 2007 at a total cost of $32,690, or about $340 per trip.
On September 8, 2011, defendant pled guilty to the lesser-included charge of
misdemeanor theft by false pretenses. The court sentenced defendant, as agreed in the
plea agreement, to 379 days of time served and 24 months of probation, with $32,690 in
victim restitution.
On August 10, 2012, defendant filed an in pro per petition for writ of coram nobis
seeking to vacate the plea bargain agreement and withdraw his guilty plea. The basis for
the petition was that he was heavily medicated and unable to think rationally at the time
3
he signed the plea agreement because he had been taking Seroquel. The court found a
prima facie case for relief and appointed the public defender to represent defendant.
The People filed their opposition on May 17, 2013. The People argued the
petition should be denied because both defendant and the court were aware that defendant
was being given Seroquel at the time of the guilty plea and the Seroquel was in fact
beneficial to defendant because it made him competent to stand trial.
The trial court held a hearing on defendant’s petition on July 3, 2013. The court
concluded that the Seroquel had helped defendant regain his competency, that the dosage
was within therapeutic levels, and that the day after the plea a psychiatrist examined
defendant and found his mental status and judgment to be good.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
MILLER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for writ of coram nobis, finding no arguable issues regarding the defendant's claim that medication impaired his ability to enter a valid guilty plea.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for writ of coram nobis to withdraw his guilty plea based on alleged medication-induced cognitive impairment.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court held a hearing on defendant’s petition on July 3, 2013. The court concluded that the Seroquel had helped defendant regain his competency, that the dosage was within therapeutic levels”
“we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”