People v. McAninch CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 11, 2015 No. F068975Unpublished

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 her plea, as she failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she entered the plea under mistake or ignorance.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw her plea?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”

“A denial of the motion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing the court has abused its discretion.”

“The defendant has the burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is good cause for withdrawal of his or her guilty plea.”

Filed 12/11/15 P. v. McAninch 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068975 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF231551) v.

LORRIE ANN MCANINCH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge. Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Peter H. Smith and Daniel B. Bernstein, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant, Lorrie Ann McAninch, pled no contest in case No. VCF231551 to possession of methamphetamine (count 1/Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater with a prior conviction (count 3/Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b) & 23540), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (count 4/Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). In case No. TCM265401 McAninch pled no contest to driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or greater with a prior conviction and she admitted an allegation that she had a BAC of 0.15 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23578). On appeal, McAninch contends the court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to withdraw her plea in case No. VCF231551. We affirm. FACTS On August 13, 2009, McAninch was arrested in Exeter for driving under the influence. During a search of her purse, an officer found a marble size piece of methamphetamine. McAninch subsequently admitted that she smoked methamphetamine six hours prior to being stopped. Two breath tests disclosed that McAninch had a blood-alcohol content of 0.13 percent (case No. VCF231551). On March 5, 2012, McAninch was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (case No. TCM265401). On August 8, 2012, McAninch entered a plea in both cases. During the change of plea proceeding Deputy Public Defender Anthony Dell’Anno stated:

“MR. DELL’ANNO [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, it’s my understanding, and I want to make sure Ms. McAninch understands this, that at this time, in exchange for a plea of no contest or guilty to the charges against her, that the Court would be sentencing her to a total of 60 days on the TCM 265401, and a lot of that time is due to her priors.

People v. McAninch CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief