People v. Cueva CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2021 No. B310652Unpublished

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 vacate her plea, as the record demonstrated the plea was entered voluntarily and the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion were meritless.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate her plea?
Was the defendant's plea invalid due to a lack of information regarding consequences or ineffective assistance of counsel?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea.”

“The record is abundantly clear that defendant was fully advised of the consequences of entering her plea and that she entered that plea freely and voluntarily.”

“There is also no evidence that defendant’s counsel coerced her into entering her plea.”

Filed 11/18/21 P. v. Cueva CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B310652

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA444480) v.

NANCY AMPARO CUEVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Nancy Amparo Cueva (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to vacate her plea. Her appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), indicating that her review of the entire record revealed no “arguable issues on

appeal.” Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We will accordingly review the arguments she raises. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1040 (Cole) review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) However, they all lack merit, so we affirm. In 2016, the People charged defendant with three counts of grand theft by embezzlement (Penal Code1 section 487, subd. (a)), and alleged sentencing enhancements because the total theft exceeded $200,000 (§§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3) & 12022.6, subd. 2 (a)(2)). Prior to the scheduled preliminary hearing on those charges, defendant accepted the People’s offer to plead no contest to a single count of embezzlement, to serve 16 months in prison and to pay $321,500 in restitution in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and enhancements. The trial court engaged in a thorough plea colloquy: The court recounted the charges against defendant and the consequences of entry of a plea of no contest and advised her of her rights to a preliminary hearing, to a court or jury trial, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her, to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. The court then reiterated the terms of the proposed agreement including the amounts of restitution owed to each victim. Throughout the colloquy, the court provided defendant several opportunities to confer with counsel, and she did so twice. Defendant stated she understood her rights and entered a plea of

People v. Cueva CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B310652

NANCY AMPARO CUEVA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief