People v. Blueford CA3

Filed 4/4/24 P. v. Blueford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099165

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE017525)

v.

ADAM BLUEFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Adam Blueford asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will modify the judgment to specify the statutory authority for, and amount of, two mandatory assessments and, as so modified, affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The victim reported to her stepmother that defendant sexually assaulted her more than 100 times when she was between 10 and 13 years old. She described incidents of vaginal intercourse, oral copulation, and digital penetration. An amended information charged defendant with 21 counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).)1 The information also alleged six circumstances in aggravation. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), (a)(11), (b)(2), (b)(4).) Defendant waived his constitutional rights and pleaded no contest to counts one, four, seven, and sixteen, and admitted the aggravating circumstance that the victim was particularly vulnerable. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3).) The plea agreement provided the trial court would sentence defendant to the upper term of 10 years on each count for an aggregate prison sentence of 40 years. The balance of the counts and circumstances in aggravation were to be dismissed. Approximately three months later, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. He asserted he did not voluntarily and intelligently enter into his plea because, at the time, he had been without his required medication for the preceding 14 days after he was relocated to Folsom State Prison due to flooding. Because he had not been taking his required medication, he experienced confusion and racing thoughts, preventing him from understanding the consequences of the plea agreement. Additionally, he asserted he did not receive the plea offer until minutes before entering his plea. In argument on defendant’s motion, the prosecutor noted the medical records, which are in the record on appeal, showed defendant had been prescribed certain