People v. Smith CA3

Filed 7/29/21 P. v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090708

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF20171569) v.

SHANE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Shane Smith pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) with a maximum possible sentence of three years. The plea deal granted defendant deferred judgment on the felony pending the completion of certain conditions, including an addiction treatment diversion program. However, if it was determined that diversion was “not feasible” for defendant, defendant was permitted to withdraw from the plea agreement. Defendant failed to engage with the diversion program and then moved to withdraw from the plea agreement, which the trial

1

court denied. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court violated his due process rights when it denied his motion to withdraw, because his failure to engage in the diversion program constituted prima face evidence the program was not feasible, and thus he should have been permitted to withdraw from the plea agreement. Disagreeing with defendant, we affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts of this case are not relevant to this appeal. It suffices to say that the police discovered several pills of MDMA and $1,195 in defendant’s possession during a traffic stop. After the police obtained a search warrant, they found texts on defendant’s cellphone discussing drug-related transactions. A. The Plea Deal Shortly before trial was set to begin, with 82 potential jurors waiting outside, the People announced that the parties had reached a tentative plea deal in which defendant would plead guilty to misdemeanor possession and enter a deferred plea on felony possession with the intent to sell. The prosecutor explained that under the terms of the deal, defendant would have to either complete Addiction Intervention Court (AIC) or the comparable Steps to Success Program. However, the parties did not yet know the specifics of the diversion programs, including whether the programs were available or whether defendant could use medical marijuana in either program. Without that information, defense counsel said that he was unable to advise defendant whether to take the deal. The trial court was unhappy that the parties waited until the trial date before reaching a tentative agreement and expressed concern about cancelling the trial with the plea deal still uncertain. To alleviate these concerns, the parties offered to formalize an agreement that day, which would give defendant the ability to withdraw his plea if “it was just too logistically inappropriate.” The trial court agreed with this approach, as it had been hoping for a resolution but did not “want [defendant] in a position where he’s set up for failure either.” The court