From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Eti

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 25, 2008
No. H031614 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ETI, Defendant and Appellant. H031614 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District March 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC513667

RUSHING, P.J.

Defendant Michael Eti was convicted by his guilty plea to two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant to 80 years in state prison. On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

We provide a truncated statement of the underlying facts, because they are not relevant to the issue on appeal.

In March 2006, defendant and seven codefendants were charged with two counts of second degree murder (§ 187) for deaths that occurred as a result of a gang fight between the “C-Street” gang and the Tongans. Each of the counts included the special allegations that the offenses involved more than one murder and were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang; that defendant was a principal in each of the alleged murders, and that at least one principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm. (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 186.22 subd. (b)(1)(A), 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1).)

In February 2007, defendant negotiated a plea agreement that provided that the district attorney would withdraw the special circumstances allegation that would allow the state to seek the death penalty, and defendant would be sentenced to consecutive terms for a total of 80 years to life in state prison.

Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court asked defendant questions regarding whether the plea he was entering was voluntary. The court explained to defendant that in exchange for his guilty plea, the prosecutor would move to dismiss the special circumstances allegations. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) In addition, the court advised defendant, “once you plead guilty, it’s almost impossible to take back your pleas.” Defendant told the court that he had sufficient time to discuss his case with his attorney and that he was satisfied with his attorney’s advice. The court conducted substantial voir dire on the issue of improper influences affecting defendant’s decision to plead guilty, including specific questions about defendant’s seven codefendants, and whether defendant had been threatened to plead, or whether defendant was pleading to help any of his codefendants. Defendant answered that he was pleading freely and voluntarily, and that he had not been threatened to plead, and was not pleading to help his codefendants.

In March 2007, through his counsel, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on defendant’s mistake and/or inadvertence. Defendant testified at the hearing on the motion that he was separately housed with two of his codefendants in the jail: Siaosi Loia and Emmanual Sua. He stated that he felt emotional pressure to plead guilty, because his co-defendants told him that if he did plead, they would be going home. Defendant testified that the victim’s family was crying in the courtroom at the time of his plea. Defendant also stated that he was influenced to plead, because his codefendants were married with young children and could not survive prison. On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that his attorney never told him his codefendants would be going home if he pleaded guilty; rather, his attorney told him that his codefendants would do some time, but he was uncertain of the amount of time.

After hearing defendant’s testimony, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. The court found there was no evidence defendant was coerced into pleading guilty by his attorney, the court or any of the codefendants. The court also found defendant’s testimony at the motion was not credible, and contradicted his earlier testimony at the time he entered his plea.

Following the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea, the court imposed the following sentence: 15 years to life term for each of the two murder counts, to be served consecutively; 25 years to life for each of the two gun use enhancements, also to be served consecutively, for a total of 80 years to life. The court stayed punishment on the two gang enhancements.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because he was operating under mistake or inadvertence when he entered his plea.

Section 1018 allows a trial court to grant a defendant’s application to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or no contest “before judgment . . . for a good cause shown . . . .” “Mistake, ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea. [Citations.] But good cause must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.” (People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566.) The trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254.) In making our determination, we must adopt the trial court’s factual findings if substantial evidence supports them. (Ibid.)

The primary basis for defendant’s assertion that he entered his plea under mistake or inadvertence is that he was emotionally pressured by his codefendants, based on his belief that if he pleaded guilty, his codefendants would be “going home.”

Although defendant argues the existence of his co-defendants pressured him into pleading guilty in this case, he acknowledges that the plea agreement was not a “package deal,” in which the entry of his plea was conditioned on his codefendants also pleading. The record demonstrates that defendant and the prosecutor were the only two parties to the plea agreement; there were no representations made by the court, the prosecutor or defense counsel as to how defendant’s plea would impact his codefendants, if at all.

Despite defendant’s acknowledgment that he did not plead pursuant to a package deal, he cites In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277 (Ibarra) in his appeal for the proposition that when a defendant enters a “package deal” plea bargain, the trial court, before accepting the plea, must conduct an inquiry into the totality of circumstances, including possible coercive forces, to determine that it is voluntary. He now asserts he was naïve when he entered his plea, and did not understand that it was not part of a package deal. Therefore, the argument follows that the court should have conducted a more extensive voir dire pursuant to Ibarra for package deals.

There is no basis for defendant’s argument that the court should have conducted a more thorough review of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s plea when it was accepted. There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant did not understand the consequences of the plea, or more importantly, that he did not know the plea was not a “package,” as he now implies he believed. The court conducted adequate voir dire of defendant at the plea hearing, and was satisfied that defendant was not coerced into entering his plea, and did not enter his plea out of concern for any of his codefendants.

Indeed, as to the psychological pressure arising from defendant’s concern for his codefendants, and believing they would “go home” if he pleaded guilty, we note that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trier or fact (see People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304), and here trial court did not credit defendant’s testimony to the effect that he ultimately pleaded guilty out of concern for his codefendants. The record reflects that when defendant entered his plea, the court asked whether he was entering his plea because “this is in your personal best interest or are you doing it to help one or more of your codefendants or to get some sort of benefit for one or more of your co-defendants. Are you doing it for them or for yourself?” To which defendant responded, “For myself.” It was only at the motion to withdraw his plea that defendant first asserted his concern for his co-defendants as a motivator in his decision to enter a plea. The court evaluated his credibility at both the entry of plea, as well as the motion, and resoundingly rejected defendant’s testimony at the motion, finding it be lacking in credibility and self-serving.

We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Eti

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 25, 2008
No. H031614 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Eti

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ETI, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Mar 25, 2008

Citations

No. H031614 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)