People v. Mead CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2014 No. C074649Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by failing to sua sponte inquire into the grounds for a defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea, as the burden rests on the defendant to present evidence justifying the withdrawal. Furthermore, the record failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because it did not demonstrate that counsel lacked a tactical reason for failing to provide a basis for the motion.

Issues

Did the trial court violate due process or abuse its discretion by failing to inquire into the basis for the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas?
Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to provide a basis for the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although we encourage trial courts to inquire into the basis for a defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, there is no affirmative duty of a trial court to inquire into a defendant’s reasons.”

“The record on appeal does not allow us to find ineffective assistance of counsel because we cannot say defense counsel had no conceivable tactical purpose for his omissions.”

Filed 12/22/14 P. v. Mead CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Trinity) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074649

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F0106, 12F0144A, 13F0057) v.

WILFRED JOSEPH MEAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

After pleading guilty to several charges surrounding the possession of methamphetamine, defendant Wilfred Joseph Mead informed the court at a sentencing hearing that he wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. Without inquiring into defendant’s basis for withdrawing the pleas, the trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to six years in prison and two concurrent two-year sentences. On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his pleas, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process and his counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Within one year, defendant was caught with methamphetamine on his person three times.1 Three separate cases were filed against him. The first case charged defendant with possession and transportation of a controlled substance (felonies), possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor), and driving on a suspended license (misdemeanor). It also alleged defendant had one conviction for driving on a suspended license, another conviction pending for driving on a suspended license, four prior prison terms, and an exemption from serving his sentence in local custody. The second case charged defendant with possession of a controlled substance (felony), possession of a controlled substance while armed (felony), transportation of a controlled substance (felony), and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor). This complaint alleged the same enhancements with an additional enhancement for being on bail when he committed these offenses. The third case charged defendant with transportation and possession of a controlled substance, and the aforementioned enhancements. At three different hearings, defendant pled not guilty to all charges and denied all allegations. On July 31, 2013, defendant pled guilty to three counts of transportation of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance while armed. He admitted one prior prison term and that he was exempt from serving his sentence in local custody. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. On August 21, 2013, at the commencement of defendant’s sentencing hearing for all three cases, defense counsel notified the court that defendant wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas in all three cases. Neither defendant nor defense counsel stated a basis for the withdrawal of the pleas. The trial court asked counsel for the People to respond to the request, and counsel argued against the motion, asserting that defendant entered into the

People v. Mead CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074649

WILFRED JOSEPH MEAD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUTZ , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief