People v. Mattson CA2/6

Filed 6/6/16 P. v. Mattson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B260082 (Super. Ct. No. F463459) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ANDREW DAVID MATTSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Three years and six attorneys after the complaint was filed and well into the trial, appellant Andrew David Mattson pled no contest pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. At the colloquy preceding his acceptance of the “deal,” he expressly stated that he was changing his plea because he did not feel that he received fair treatment from judges who knew and were friendly with the victim’s employer. He agreed to plead no contest only if he could appeal pretrial rulings and the judges’ failure to recuse themselves. The trial court with the consent of the prosecutor agreed. While it is true that the agreement he entered into permitted him to “appeal,” established rules preclude testing such claims on appeal because they do not affect the legality of the plea proceedings. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Mattson was convicted of one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),1 one count of second-degree

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

robbery (§ 211), and four counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted allegations that he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) and had two prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for 16 years. Mattson contends that he should be entitled to withdraw from his plea agreement because it was based on a mistaken understanding that he was preserving his right to appeal issues that are in fact non-cognizable following a guilty plea. We agree. Accordingly, we conditionally vacate and remand to the trial court to permit Mattson the opportunity to set aside his plea should he wish to do so. If he declines to do so, the judgment will stand affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the probation report, Mattson and his girlfriend lived together for six years of their seven-year relationship. During the final two months, he frequently beat her severely and threatened to kill her. One day, he called her names such as “dirty slut” and demanded that she write down the names of people with whom she had had prior sexual encounters. He accused her of lying. He tied her wrists and ankles together with shoestrings and gagged her with a strap, leaving lacerations, multiple bruises, and ligature marks on her ankles. He locked her in a dark closet for an hour, stating that he would kill her. Eventually, he had her change clothes into something “sexy.” They drove around, looking to buy heroin, she thought. He again threatened to kill her that night. The prosecution charged Mattson with one count of torture (§ 206), four counts of criminal threats (§ 422), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236), one count of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant, two counts of second-degree robbery, two counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)), and three counts of disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)).2 The charged counts exposed him to a