Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV038120. Paul M. Bryant, Jr., Judge.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
Albert Camacho (defendant) appeals from a judgment following his convictions of counts arising from a domestic violence incident for which he was placed on probation.
Background
On April 26, 2006, police responded to a domestic violence incident call involving defendant and his girlfriend, who had noticeable physical injuries to her face. When interviewed a month later, the victim stated she had been driving defendant in Ontario when he became upset. He threatened suicide and told her he would kill her if she left him. When she exited the vehicle, he pursued her on foot and slammed her against a building, causing the facial injuries. Defendant admitted being involved in a domestic dispute that got out of hand and admitted pushing her.
On October 24, 2006, an amended felony complaint was filed alleging one count of committing corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), three counts of committing criminal threats against three separate victims (§ 422), and one count of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1). That same day, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing (§ 859a), and entered into a negotiated plea agreement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Pursuant to the plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to the charge of corporal injury to a spouse and to one count alleging criminal threats. In return for the guilty plea to the two counts, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the balance of the complaint. The agreement provided defendant be granted probation with standard domestic violence terms and a condition requiring him to serve 365 days in local custody. It also provided for the imposition of a stipulated four year sentence, execution of which was suspended during the period of probation, and a favorable disposition of other cases. The plea agreement also included a waiver of defendant’s right to appeal from any motion he may have brought or could bring, and from the conviction and judgment in his case, since he was getting the benefit of a plea bargain. The parties agreed that police reports, which were not included in the record on appeal, provided the factual basis for the plea.
Information obtained from the police reports was included in the probation report.
On November 22, 2006, the date set for sentencing, defendant informed the court he wished to withdraw his plea. His attorney was relieved, the public defender was reappointed, and the matter was continued for a hearing related to the defendant’s request to withdraw his plea.
On February 7, 2007, a formal motion to withdraw the guilty plea was filed. The motion was made on the grounds defendant was taking psychiatric medication at the time of his plea, which caused him to be confused and prevented him from understanding what he was doing. Further, defendant asserted in his motion that unbeknownst to him, the victim of the domestic violence had been severely beaten by the father of her child, a man named Salvador Vargas, shortly after defendant’s arrest and that this evidence could have been used in his defense.
The motion to withdraw the plea was denied on March 14, 2007, and the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain. He appealed the sentence and sought a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of the plea. On May 3, 2007, the trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
Discussion
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1386, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record, including the grounds asserted in the notice of appeal pertaining the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We noted that the main thrust of his motion was information acquired by defendant regarding an assault of the victim by the father of her child after the date of the assault for which defendant was charged. We observe that recantations by victims of crimes are not considered reliable. (See In re Roberts (2003) 29 Cal.4th 726, 742-743.) Thus, it would not constitute good cause to set aside the plea.
Further, we note that defendant admitted pushing the victim on the date of the alleged incident, which caused the facial injuries observed by the officer who responded to the initial call. Finally, defendant’s self-serving statements that his plea was involuntary due to the effects of medication are insufficient to overcome the trial court’s finding the plea was knowingly and intelligently made, or that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective. (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 917-918.) Therefore, the new information does not constitute good cause to set aside a guilty plea.
Finally, we refer to the waivers made by defendant in connection with his change of plea, which included a waiver of the right to appeal from the conviction or sentence. Defendant was effectively represented by counsel in the trial court as well as on appeal.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER J., GAUT J.