People v. Smith CA2/5

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. Smith CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B311789

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. A533762)

WILLIAM SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Sally Patrone Brajevich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Penal Code section 1473.6 authorizes courts to vacate a criminal judgment based on newly discovered evidence of fraud or misconduct by a government official.1 We consider whether the trial court correctly denied defendant and appellant William Smith’s (defendant’s) section 1473.6 motion, which argued defense counsel and the trial court failed to properly advise him of his rights before he pled guilty.

I. BACKGROUND Over 30 years ago, in May 1986, defendant pled guilty to two counts of robbery and two counts of attempted kidnapping for robbery (§§ 209, subd. (b), 664). The trial court sentenced him to fourteen years in prison. More recently, in March of 2021, defendant filed a section 1473.6 motion. This is how the notice of motion summarizes the issues raised: “1. Defendant must be advised of his constitutional rights against compulsory self-incrimination, to a jury trial, and to confront accusers before he can enter a plea. [Boykin v. Alabama] (1969) 395 U.S. 238. [¶] 2. When a transcript of the defendant’s plea is lost or destroyed, he may present other evidence that his BOYKIN/TAHL right[s] were infringed. [People v. Sumstine] (1991) 36 Cal.3d 909. [¶] 3. The defendant should be advised of the direct consequences of his plea. [In re Ronald E.] (1977) 19 [C]al.3d 315, 325; [People v. Watson] (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. [¶] 4. The defendant should be advised of the nature of the charges against him. [Bunnell v. Superior Court] (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 6022. [¶] 5. The plea should be vacated if the