Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF10005403. Harry A. Staley, Judge. (Retired judge of the Kern Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.).
Law Offices of John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, and Meagan J. Beale, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster Acting P.J.
INTRODUCTION
On May 26, 2010, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Israel Meraz (defendant) with battery causing serious bodily injury under Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d) (count 1); and assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, and by means likely to produce great bodily injury under section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2). The complaint alleged with respect to count 2 that (1) defendant personally used a knife, within the meaning of sections 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and 1192.7, subdivision (a)(23); and (2) defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury, within the meaning of sections 12022.7, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On June 29, 2010, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 2, and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement in connection with count 2. The trial court indicated that it would sentence defendant to a term of five years, over the objection of the People.
On September 21, 2010, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the court denied the motion. On September 27, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of five years in prison. The trial court imposed and stayed a term of three years on count 1, battery with serious bodily injury, and imposed the low term of two years on count 2, assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to cause great bodily injury. The court then imposed a consecutive term of three years on the great bodily injury enhancement, and struck the enhancement for personal use of a knife.
On November 4, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On November 22, 2010, he filed another notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause to file this appeal challenging his conviction.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant stipulated that the complaint could be used as the factual basis for the plea, and he admitted those charges in court.
On May 21, 2010, defendant battered Juan C. (the victim), inflicting serious bodily injury. He also assaulted the victim, personally using a knife and personally inflicting great bodily injury to the victim.
ANALYSIS
1.
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that, as a matter of law, the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree.
“Penal Code section 1018 provides that a trial court ‘must’ allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in the case of a defendant who entered a guilty plea without counsel, and in other cases the court ‘may... for good cause shown, permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn....’” (People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 184; see People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566.) Good cause is shown by mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, or “‘any other factor overreaching defendant’s free and clear judgment, ’” and the defendant has the burden of showing good cause by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Superior Court (Giron) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 793, 797; see also People v. Cruz, supra, at p. 566.) The trial court then considers all factors necessary to obtain a just result, including the rights of the defendant. (People v. Superior Court (Giron), supra, at p. 798; People v. Waters (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 323, 331.) The trial court must examine whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges, the elements of the offense, the pleas, and the defenses at the time of his or her plea. (People v. Hunt (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 95, 103.)
“A decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea ‘“rests in the sound discretion of the trial court”’ and is final unless the defendant can show a clear abuse of that discretion.” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254.) The trial court has broad discretion when considering a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and the facts found by the trial court must be adopted by the reviewing court if they are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Suon (1999)76 Cal.App.4th 1, 4; People v. Mickens (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1561.) Therefore, the trial court’s denial must be arbitrary, capricious or exceed the bounds of reason to be disturbed on appeal. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121.)
The reviewing court must also take into account that “guilty pleas entered as a result of a bargain should not be lightly set aside and... the finality of such proceedings should be encouraged.” (People v. Urfer (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 887, 893, fn. 6, citing Blackledge v. Allison (1977) 431 U.S. 63 [52 L.Ed.2d 136, 97 S.Ct. 1621].)
In this case, when defendant pled guilty on June 29, 2010, he was represented by an attorney and assisted by a sworn interpreter. The trial court asked defendant if he understood all of his rights, and understood that he was giving up his rights. Defendant responded yes. In addition, defendant signed a written change of plea form, and initialed each of his rights and the consequences applicable to his plea. The court asked defendant if he understood his rights, the charges, and the consequences of the plea, and defendant stated that he did. Defendant also admitted the facts supporting the charges and pled guilty to the charges.
Moreover, defense counsel signed the plea form, attesting that defendant understood his rights, had adequate time to discuss the case with counsel, and understood the consequences of the plea. The interpreter signed the written form stating that she had translated the form for defendant, and that defendant stated he fully understood the contents of the form before signing it.
Three months later, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. Defendant signed a declaration stating that he was informed and believed that his attorney failed to explain the contents of the felony plea form to him “with (or without) the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter.” Moreover, defendant declared that the interpreter failed to read the plea form to him; the interpreter only indicated where his signatures and initials were required. Defendant went on to state that he did not understand that the documents he signed “constituted an entry of plea and a waiver of [his] right to proceed to jury trial.” Defendant further declared that, “[a]fter having an opportunity to reflect upon what happened, I realized that I did the exact opposite of what my full intention had been since the case originated: To take the case to trial.”
At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, defense counsel, appointed solely for the motion to withdraw, stated that she would be submitting on the moving papers. However, she wanted to point out that defendant “wishes to assert that when the Court was taking his plea, he’s not confident that the Spanish interpreter was appropriately translating the Court’s words to him in Spanish and his words in Spanish back to the Court in English.” Defendant, however, did not testify or present any other evidence to support his assertion.
The trial court took judicial notice of the transcript of the prior hearing and reviewed the discussion between the parties and the court when the plea was entered. The court first found that the statements by defendant that “he did not understand what was happening at the time and didn’t receive appropriate translation services... to be self-serving.” Then the court went on to find that defendant was fully questioned about his understanding of his rights. The court noted that defendant “was asked repeatedly if he understood his rights; if he had any questions about his rights; and even there was a little bit of an issue there and that was clarified, that he did understand his rights[.]” Thereafter, the court found that “there is insufficient basis for a withdrawal of the plea, ” and denied defendant’s motion.
We hold that the trial court’s finding—that defendant fully understood his rights when he pled guilty to the charges—is supported by substantial evidence. As provided above, defendant supports his contention that he did not enter into the plea knowingly and voluntarily with his self-serving declaration. Moreover, defendant’s contention that he did not understand what was happening and did not receive competent translation service was based solely on his self-serving statement to his counsel, which was then relayed to the court via his counsel. As a general rule, a self-serving declaration lacks trustworthiness. (People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, 611.) The trial court appears to have discredited or given little weight to defendant’s self-serving declaration and statement via his counsel. As is the case with most evidentiary rulings, determining defendant’s credibility and the evidentiary value of his self-serving declaration is within the trial court’s discretion. (People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 533.) On appeal, we will not disturb this determination unless the court abused its discretion. (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335.)
Based on the above, we find that defendant entered into his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: King J., Miller J.