People v. Holt CA1/1

Filed 2/16/21 P. v. Holt CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161016 v. DOMINICK MATTHEW HOLT, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR952151) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dominick Matthew Holt entered a plea of no contest to one count of forcible sexual penetration (Pen. Code,1 § 289, subd. (a)(1)(C)), and was sentenced to the low term of six years in state prison. Holt appeals from the judgment of conviction challenging the denial of his request to withdraw his plea of no contest. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Holt was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm. In October 2018, 14-year-old S.D. reported that she had been sexually assaulted by Holt at a residence where she had been temporarily staying.2

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.

1

Holt was charged with forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C) [count I]); forcible sexual intercourse (§ 261, subd. (a)(2) [count II]); and indecent exposure (§ 314 [count III]). In January 2019, Holt was found incompetent but his competency was later restored and criminal proceedings resumed with a preliminary hearing in July 2019. On the eve of trial, Holt indicated that he wanted to enter a change of plea. On February 7, 2020, Holt pled no contest to one count of forcible sexual penetration in exchange for a maximum of six years in prison and sex offender registration upon his release. Several months later—and represented by a new attorney—Holt moved to withdraw his plea on the grounds that he did not understand the consequences of the plea. According to the motion, Holt, who suffers from unspecified bipolar disorder, also has “consistently had cognitive impairment which impacts his ability to understand abstract concepts.” At an evidentiary hearing, Holt testified the medication he takes for “depression and . . . anger outbursts” makes him “slow” and unable to “understand[] certain words and conversations.” Holt said he had been persuaded by some jail inmates to take the plea so that he could go to prison with them in a group. Holt recalled talking with counsel and going over the change of plea form, but said that, at the time of his plea, he did not understand the elements of the charges against him or what it meant to plead no contest. Holt said he did not remember the plea colloquy with the judge and did not understand what a free and voluntary plea meant. He recalled being asked at the time if he had any questions and telling the judge that he did not. Holt remembered initialing and signing the plea form but “lied” when he told the judge that he understood what the plea form meant because he thought going to prison with the others was “the best option.”