People v. Gomez CA3

Filed 11/1/22 P. v. Gomez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Glenn) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095518

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR15666)

v.

ANNELISSA CHRISTINE GOMEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a court trial, defendant Annelissa Christine Gomez was found guilty of attempting to smuggle contraband into a conservation camp. Defendant appeals, contending she did not provide a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her right to a jury trial. We conclude defendant’s jury waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made under the totality of the circumstances. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant sat in the back seat of a vehicle when, approximately a mile away from Valley View Conservation Camp (camp), police officers pulled the vehicle over. Inside the vehicle, police officers found a reusable grocery bag containing alcohol, tobacco,

1

rolling papers, vape pens, and marijuana. One of the police officers recognized defendant from her prior visits to her husband, Misael Gomez, who was an inmate at the camp. The officer suspected defendant was planning to smuggle the contraband items in the grocery bag into the camp by giving them to her husband. Concurrently, at the camp, defendant’s husband was interviewed and responded with incriminating statements, confirming he knew the contents of the grocery bag and he intended to meet his wife at a specific location to obtain the contraband from her. Defendant was charged with one count of attempted smuggling of contraband into a conservation camp. Defendant had prior traffic infractions but no prior convictions. At the trial readiness conference, defense counsel entered a jury waiver. Defense counsel advised the court that he and defendant had discussed “the difference between a jury trial and a trial by court” and defendant wanted to waive her right to a trial by jury. The trial court asked defendant if that was correct and whether she had an opportunity to speak with her attorney about the difference between a court trial and a jury trial. Defendant responded in the affirmative to both questions. The trial court further asked defendant if she “underst[ood] the difference is that twelve people sit in judgment with you in a jury trial, and only one person would sit in judgment on a court trial?” Defendant responded, “[y]es.” The trial court confirmed defendant and the prosecution wanted to waive the right to a jury trial and then accepted the waiver, “find[ing] it’s been knowingly and intelligently done.” After finding defendant guilty of attempting to smuggle contraband into a conservation camp, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years of probation, including 90 days to be served either in Glenn County Jail or on electronic home monitoring, and ordered her to pay a fine and multiple assessments totaling $890. Defendant appeals.