People v. Casarez CA3

Filed 3/7/24 P. v. Casarez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098325

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. LOD-CR-FE- 2020-0008794) v.

ENRIQUE ESTEBAN CASAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion by defendant Enrique Esteban Casarez to withdraw his plea of no contest to a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion because, when the court entered his plea, the pain from a leg injury and his alleged belief that he had to plead in order to get medical attention, rendered his plea involuntary. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The San Joaquin County District Attorney charged defendant with a violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (a)(1)(B), sexual penetration with force on a person under 14 years of age (count 1), and a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), lewd acts upon a child (count 2). On March 3, 2021, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, count 1 was dismissed, and defendant pled no contest to violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), as charged in count 2. The factual basis for his plea was “defendant did willfully and unlawfully commit a lewd and lascivious act, specifically he touched the breasts and the vagina of the victim, . . . a child under the age of fourteen years, and he did so with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lusts, passions and sexual desires of said defendant.” At the beginning of the plea hearing, defense counsel indicated defendant had a leg injury that counsel would like to address “at some point.” The court then proceeded with the plea. During the hearing, the court asked defendant 18 times if he understood what he was doing and each time he indicated he did. Additionally, the court asked defendant if “any promises or threats [have] been made to obtain your plea” and whether he was under the influence of anything, and defendant replied “[n]o, sir” to both questions. Thus, the court found “defendant knowingly, intelligentially, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and entered the plea, and finds him guilty of the charge,” and the matter was set for sentencing. The court then asked defense counsel if he needed to address anything else, and counsel indicated defendant was “suffering from a medical condition, an injury to his leg. He has some type of infection. I went to see him yesterday and he showed it to me. He’s dripping pus and blood, it looked real bad.” The court ordered jail medical to treat defendant’s injury and adjourned proceedings. Prior to sentencing, the court suspended proceedings, under Penal Code section 1368, for an evaluation of defendant’s competency. On April 21, 2022, the court found