Opinion
D059255 Super. Ct. No. SCS230471
02-07-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL RAYMOND BAUER, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2009, seven-year-old Joel H. was in the bathroom of a McDonald's fast food restaurant. When Joel came out of the restroom, Michael Raymond Bauer followed and gave Joel some paper towels. Joel told his mother Bauer was "crazy" and had touched Joel. Bauer quickly left the establishment. Joel's mother immediately reported the incident to trolley security officers. In an interview after the event, Joel reported that Bauer helped him wash his hands, then pushed him against the wall and put his hands down Joel's pants, and touched Joel's penis.
In a felony complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Diego County on
July 13, 2009, Bauer was charged with one count of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). On March 19, 2010, an information was filed (case No. CS230471).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On December 17, 2009, Bauer initialed and signed an acknowledgement of constitutional rights for those intending to represent themselves. The form, required pursuant to People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568, sets forth the waiver of rights occurring on a plea of guilty or no contest.
On December 21, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement in which he represented himself, Bauer entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense. He was placed on five years' formal probation with certain conditions, including not associating with minors, nor being in places where minors congregate unless with an adult approved by the probation officer. Bauer received credit for time served and was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290.
On February 2, 2011, Bauer was arrested for allegedly violating probation in case No. CS230471.
On February 18, 2010, Bauer filed a notice of appeal in case No. CS230471. On February 28, 2010, the court granted Bauer's request for a certificate of probable cause.
On appeal, Bauer seeks to withdraw his guilty plea.
ANALYSIS
Bauer's opening and reply briefs reflect that he does not allege the trial court failed to properly advise him or that he lacked the mental capacity to enter into the plea agreement. Rather, his argument is that the plea was not voluntary or intelligent because he did not have "sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences" of the plea, and further, was a form of mistake and inadvertence overreaching his free will and judgment. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1178; People v. Mortera (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 861, 864.) We disagree.
The record of the sentencing hearing reflects Bauer responded fully, clearly and concisely to the court's inquiries. Where he had questions, he asked the court to answer them and provide additional explanations, if necessary, to his understanding of the plea and its consequences. At times he provided information neither the court nor deputy district attorney possessed. Indeed, as he commented and the court acknowledged, his plea forms displayed the level of sophistication rivaling that of attorneys.
Bauer requests we focus on the questions he raised concerning the conditions of probation. He urges that the number and nature of the questions he asked about the conditions reflect his lack of understanding. To the contrary, the record reflects Bauer's questions were designed to help him understand exactly what he could and could not do as a condition of probation. For example, he asked a series of questions about the circumstances under which he might find himself in the presence of children, including at family gatherings. The court addressed what was meant by prohibiting Bauer from "associating" with minors. The court referred him to his probation officer with specific questions he might have. The record demonstrates that contrary to being confused, Bauer was well aware of the myriad circumstances in which he might be around children and was attempting to define the acceptable parameters of his conduct.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P.J. WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McINTYRE, J.