People v. Mancias CA5

Filed 9/25/14 P. v. Mancias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066583 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11906149) v.

LUIS ALBERTO MANCIAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary D. Hoff and Houry A. Sanderson, Judges.† Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J. † Judge Hoff ruled on appellant’s first motion to substitute his trial counsel. Judge Sanderson presided over appellant’s change of plea, second motion to substitute counsel, and sentencing hearing.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant, Luis Alberto Mancias, was charged on July 12, 2012, in a first amended information with committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1), count 1),1 aggravated sexual assault between November 8, 1999 and November 7, 2007, on a child under the age of 14 years old and being more than seven years older than the victim (§ 269, subd. (a)(5), count 2), two counts of aggravated sexual assault by oral copulation on a victim under the age of 14 years old and being more than 10 years older than the victim (§ 269, subd. (a)(4), counts 3 & 4), and committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child who was 14 or 15 years old, and being at least 10 years older than the victim (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), count 5). On September 19, 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Appellant said he had been sending his attorney letters asking for paperwork, and explained he needed the paperwork in his case, including the statement of witnesses, to assist his counsel and had just received it the week before. Appellant told the court he was in court because of domestic violence with his wife and had a clean record. Appellant reiterated that his counsel had not brought him the paperwork. Trial counsel told the court he had gone over with appellant numerous factual discrepancies in the case. Counsel also discussed with appellant Miranda2 advisements he received from investigators. Counsel planned at trial to possibly make a challenge to statements by appellant based on Miranda, but acknowledged the challenge would be a close call. There was an offer for appellant to admit one count of section 269, subdivision (a)(5) with a sentence of 15 years to life. Appellant faced exposure of an indeterminate term of 30 years to life plus a determinate term of 4 years, or possibly, an