People v. Alcala CA3
Filed 6/17/14 P. v. Alcala CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
THE PEOPLE, C074390
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F08006, 12M08505) v.
EVA M. ALCALA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Following her plea of no contest to fraudulent receipt of public assistance and battery of her child’s father, defendant Eva M. Alcala was placed on three years’ probation conditioned on her serving 90 days in county jail. Approximately six months after entering the plea, defendant made a motion to withdraw the plea. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals that denial.
1
BACKGROUND1 An information charged defendant with felony counts of fraudulent receipt of public assistance (Welf & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)) and filing a false claim (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)).2 A separate complaint charged defendant with misdemeanor counts of corporal injury of her child’s father (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and battery of her child’s father (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest to misdemeanor counts of fraudulent receipt of public assistance and battery of her child’s father. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court granted defendant probation and sentenced her to serve 90 days in county jail; the remaining counts were dismissed. Approximately six months after entering the plea, defendant filed a motion to withdraw the plea on two grounds, mental incapacity and newly discovered evidence. As to mental incapacity, defendant claimed that on the morning of the plea, the staff at the Sacramento County Main Jail administered Flexeril and Tramadol to her, each of which can “cause side effects that may impair a persons [sic] thinking or reactions.” Defendant declared she is not given Flexeril by her own treating physician as it “makes her have difficulty understanding things and following things and concentrating on things.” Defendant also declared there was newly discovered evidence that the victim, Raymond Mata, had “admitted essentially lying to the police to put [her] in jail.” Specifically, she averred that in May 2013, she and her son Michael were in a car with Mata when Michael said to Mata that “he could not believe that [Mata] put his mom in jail. [Defendant] then said, yeah, just to get out of child support. Mata[’s] reply was to laugh and say yeah, that’s right, I did, so get over it.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)