People v. Seyer CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 27, 2015 No. F069025Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, as the defendant failed to show good cause and merely experienced post-plea buyer's remorse. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the imposition of non-mandatory fees by failing to object at the trial level.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea?
Did the trial court violate the plea agreement by imposing non-mandatory fines and fees?
Did the defendant forfeit his challenge to the imposition of non-mandatory fees by failing to object in the trial court?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A defendant’s change of mind about the wisdom of a plea is not sufficient to set aside a plea.”

“Post-plea apprehension, however, is not a valid basis for setting aside a plea agreement.”

“Failure to object to the imposition of these fees in the trial court precludes any challenge to these fees on appeal.”

Filed 10/27/15 P. v. Seyer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069025 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Madera Super. Ct. v. No. MCR0426808B)

PAUL HOLMES SEYER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, Judge. Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant/defendant Paul Holmes Seyer pled no contest to a misdemeanor violation of former Penal Code1 section 12280, subdivision (b)2, unlawful possession of an assault weapon, and a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (a), possession of concentrated cannabis. Approximately one year later, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied his motion and defendant contends the denial is error. He also contends the trial court imposed various fees in violation of the plea agreement. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Because defendant entered a plea pursuant to a plea agreement, there was no trial. Therefore, the facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript. In August 2011, Agent John Scomona was assigned to the California Highway Patrol’s Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Fresno Methamphetamine Task Force. Scomona was charged with investigating major narcotics trafficking in Fresno and surrounding counties. Scomona was part of a team that executed a search warrant at an address on Highway 145 in Madera in August of 2011. During the execution of the search warrant, defendant was the only occupant of the residence who was present. Defendant cooperated with the officers and gave them access to the main residence and the access code needed to enter an industrial garage on the property. As Agent Scomona was heading toward the back portion of the garage, he heard the humming of electricity and smelled marijuana. One area of the garage was blocked off with plywood and a drywall partition; this area contained a sophisticated indoor

People v. Seyer CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief