People v. Carter CA3

Filed 6/14/16 P. v. Carter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C076942

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF091084)

DEWAYNE NORMAN CARTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dewayne Norman Carter pleaded guilty to first degree murder. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court failed to determine adequately whether he understood the rights he was waiving and whether he was doing so voluntarily. We conclude sufficient evidence supports the conclusion defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. We affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with first degree murder, with special circumstances of murder during a robbery, murder during a burglary, and torture (count 1; Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (a)(17)(G), & (a)(18)); murder with torture (count 2; § 206); robbery (count 3; § 211); burglary (count 4; § 459); and vehicle theft (count 5; Veh. Code, § 10851). The People sought the death penalty against defendant. After a doubt was raised about defendant’s competency to stand trial, the court suspended proceedings and ordered a psychologist report, a psychiatrist report, and a competency hearing. (§ 1367 et seq.) The psychologist and psychiatrist both concluded defendant appeared to be malingering and was competent to stand trial. The trial court found defendant competent and reinstated proceedings. Pursuant to section 1376, defendant submitted a forensic neuropsychological report to the People stating he suffers from an intellectual disability. The People engaged their own expert, and, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court ordered additional testing of defendant by the People’s expert. Before the People completed their expert report regarding defendant’s intellectual disability status, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder and the special circumstance of murder during a burglary. Defendant signed a plea form and entered an oral plea of guilty. During the plea change hearing, defendant’s three lawyers confirmed to the trial court that defendant understood the charges, his constitutional rights regarding the charges, and his possible defenses. The court found defendant understood the nature of the crimes and the consequences of the plea, and waived his constitutional and statutory rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Pursuant to the plea agreement,