People v. Matias CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2015 No. F070079Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was not cognizable due to his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause, and alternatively, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Issues

Whether the defendant's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause precludes appellate review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant failed to show good cause to withdraw his plea.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, even though such a motion involves a proceeding that occurs after the guilty plea.”

“The record supports the court’s conclusion that Matias failed to show good cause to withdraw his plea.”

Filed 11/5/15 P. v. Matias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070079 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1464487) v.

LUCIANO MARTIN MATIAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna Reeves, Judge. Frank P. Sprouls for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

Appellant Luciano Martin Matias pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of management or control of a location for the unlawful storage of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.5, subd. (a))1 and was placed on probation. On appeal, Matias contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. FACTS On October 9, 2013, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a house in Patterson, California on a report that marijuana was being cultivated there. The deputies arrived at the location and saw a moving van backed up to the garage. They knocked on the front door and Matias eventually answered. Matias told the deputies that he and three other men were at the house to perform some construction work and that they were boxing up the marijuana and placing the boxes in the garage so they could complete their work. The deputies arrested Matias and the three other men. On October 11, 2013, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Matias with two felonies, cultivation of marijuana (count I/ § 11358) and possession for sale of marijuana (count II/ § 11359). On January 7, 2014, Matias pled no contest to a lesser related misdemeanor charge of management or control of a location for the unlawful storage of marijuana and the remaining counts were dismissed. The court then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Matias on summary probation for three years, and ordered him to serve 30 days in custody. The minute order for Matias’s change of plea hearing, in pertinent part, states that Matias was advised that his plea could result in “deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization[.]” Matias was represented by Attorney Randolph Daar during the hearing.

People v. Matias CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief