People v. Williamson CA2/6

Filed 8/27/15 P. v. Williamson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B259077 (Super. Ct. No. 1452084) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

DAVEN LEVI WILLIAMSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daven Levi Williamson appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11378). Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying the motion because he established good cause for withdrawing his plea. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because appellant pled no contest prior to a preliminary hearing, the relevant facts are derived from the probation report. Appellant was arrested on an outstanding warrant and taken to jail. During a search conducted at the jail, a baggie containing approximately two ounces of methamphetamine was found in appellant's shorts. His backpack was found to contain an electronic scale, a used hypodermic needle, and a glass container with plastic hose attached.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

Appellant was charged with possessing methamphetamine for sale, bringing a controlled substance into a jail (Pen. Code, § 4573), and possession of drug paraphernalia (former § 11364.1, subd. (a)). He initially entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. He subsequently agreed to plead no contest on the section 11378 charge in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and five years probation. In executing the form plea agreement, appellant stated: "My attorney . . . has reviewed this form with me. I have read and understand this form. I understand the pleas and admissions I am entering, the consequences thereof and the constitutional rights I am waiving." Appellant's attorney stated that he had fully discussed the matter with appellant and was "satisfied the defendant is voluntarily and of his[] own free will seeking to enter this plea." At the change of plea hearing, appellant said that he understood the terms of his plea agreement and the consequences of his no contest plea. He also responded "no" when asked if he needed additional time to discuss the case with counsel. The court found that there was a factual basis for the plea, that appellant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, and that he "knowingly, intelligently and understandingly waived his rights, and that his waiver of rights and entry of plea are free and voluntary." When the matter was called for sentencing, appellant brought a Faretta2 motion. After the court granted the motion, appellant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant contended that his attorney had discouraged him from demanding a jury trial and had failed to assert his speedy trial rights. He also alleged that counsel had cooperated with the prosecution without his permission by arranging for appellant's girlfriend to conduct a controlled drug buy in exchange for appellant receiving a lesser sentence. Appellant claimed that he only agreed