Opinion
B312444
10-18-2022
In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.J., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E, Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stacy Schwartz and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. TJ23148) Los Angeles County Catherine J. Pratt, Judge
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E, Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stacy Schwartz and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BALTODANO, J.
As part of a 2019 plea agreement, appellant J.J. admitted allegations in two petitions brought under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Two years later, appellant moved to withdraw those admissions, arguing he was incompetent when he made them. He appeals the juvenile court's denial of that motion. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
The facts underlying appellant's offenses are irrelevant to the issues on appeal and are therefore omitted.
2018 Petitions
This appeal primarily involves section 602 petitions filed on October 16, 2018, December 18 and December 28. The October 16 petition alleged assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), criminal threats (id., § 422, subd. (a)) and vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (a)). The juvenile court detained appellant and ordered a competency evaluation.
All referenced dates are in 2018 unless otherwise stated.
Dr. Timothy Collister conducted a competency evaluation on November 2. He found appellant incompetent to proceed at that time. Dr. Collister recommended a comprehensive psychological evaluation and referral to a psychiatrist for medication management.
The December 18 petition alleged assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), felony battery on a peace officer (id., § 243, subd. (c)(2)) and misdemeanor battery on a peace officer (ibid., subd. (b)). After defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant's competency, the juvenile court suspended proceedings and transferred the matter to another department for a competency hearing.
The December 28 petition alleged second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The juvenile court declared a doubt as to appellant's competency and suspended the proceedings.
Dr. Collister conducted a competency reevaluation on March 12, 2019. He determined appellant had attained competency based upon his "significant medication regimen" and competency training. Dr. Collister stated: "This does not appear to be a marginal conclusion, but rather essentially at the level of clear and convincing evidence based on [appellant's] interactions, his understanding of concepts in the courtroom process as well as understanding the roles of participants." Dr. Collister emphasized, however, the importance of appellant's continued compliance with his medication regimen.
Three weeks later, on April 3, 2019, appellant appeared at a pre-plea hearing regarding his 2018 petitions, which had been reinstated. Appellant agreed to admit one count of battery on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c)(2)), as alleged in the December 18 petition, and one count of grand theft over $950 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), as alleged in the December 28 petition, in exchange for dismissal of the October 16 petition and all other counts.
After being advised of his rights, appellant stated, "I want to admit the charges." The juvenile court explained appellant's maximum term of confinement and the probation requirements. Appellant again stated, "I want to admit the charges." When the court offered to continue the matter for a few days to allow appellant to speak with his mother and his attorney, he responded, "I know what I did. She said I bit her; I didn't bite her. I will admit the charges."
There was a discussion on the record regarding whether appellant had injured the peace officer by bending her finger or fingernail. Appellant denied biting her.
Appellant said it was his choice to admit the charges and confirmed his understanding that he could not come back later and change his plea. Appellant then admitted the battery and grand theft charges. He had no questions for the court and said he was not confused.
The juvenile court made the following findings: "[N]otice has been given as required by law. The birthdate and county of residence of [appellant] are as stated on the petition. He has knowingly and intelligently waived his rights to trial as well as to the other constitutional rights described a moment ago. He understands the nature of the conduct alleged as well as the possible consequences. The admission was freely and voluntarily given. I do indicate that there was a previous finding based upon the competency evaluation that he is competent to stand trial, and that has been taken into consideration in taking his plea today."
The juvenile court placed appellant under the supervision of probation and ordered suitable placement. The court complimented appellant on how "closely [he] paid attention" to the proceedings and told him he did a "good job."
2020 Petitions
A section 602 petition was filed on January 21, 2020, alleging carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), second-degree robbery (id., § 211) and hit-and-run driving resulting in property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)). Defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant's competency to stand trial, and the proceedings were suspended. The juvenile court appointed Dr. David Contreras to evaluate appellant.
Dr. Contreras found appellant incompetent to stand trial but noted he likely would attain competency in the foreseeable future. Dr. Contreras explained: "In reviewing previous reports, [appellant] has shown the ability to learn, recall, and communicate an adequate understanding of court proceedings and the ability to compose himself in a manner that would facilitate a productive attorney-client relationship[;] therefore, it is likely that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future."
Additional petitions were filed on July 6, 2020, and October 27, 2020, alleging multiple crimes, including attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 215, subd. (a)), carjacking (id., § 215, subd (a)), second-degree robbery (id., § 211) and resisting a peace officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Doubts were declared as to appellant's competency and the proceedings were suspended.
On February 10, 2021, Dr. Contreras again evaluated appellant. He found appellant incompetent to stand trial, and concluded appellant is not likely to attain competency in the foreseeable future.
Motion to Withdraw Admissions
On March 15, 2021, appellant moved to withdraw his April 2019 admissions. He also asked the juvenile court to dismiss all remaining section 602 petitions. Citing Dr. Contreras's 2021 incompetency finding, appellant argued there was significant evidence that he also was incompetent in 2019, when he admitted allegations in the 2018 petitions. At the hearing on the motion, the court noted the issue was challenging because appellant's competency status had changed.
The court's tentative was to deny the motion. It explained: "I would indicate that in Dr. Collister's subsequent -- his second competency evaluation before the juvenile court proceedings were reinstated, he does go into the basis for the change in his opinion, and I think [he] has some relevant observations including the fact that [appellant] had been in the past -- he had been taking medication, and the medication seemed to have assisted him in becoming competent. He has not been taking medication recently. That might explain the change in the competence findings and/or the competence that he seems to be expressing."
At the continued hearing on May 10, 2021, the juvenile court denied appellant's motion to withdraw his admissions. It acknowledged that "[i]t's very hard to look at this without the benefit of what happened in the two years since [the plea] because I have been on this case before this plea was taken, after this plea was taken, and so we're looking at a snapshot in time. But I do believe that there is indicia that he understood what was happening."
The juvenile court noted that the transcript of the plea hearing reflected that care was taken to explain the "concepts" to appellant, that the hearing was not rushed, that he was given time to speak with his attorney, and that the court offered to postpone the matter for a few days to allow appellant to speak again with his mother and attorney. Appellant declined that offer. The court ultimately determined it was appropriate to proceed with the plea in 2019 and denied appellant's motion.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw the admissions he made at the April 2019 plea hearing. Appellant concedes Dr. Collister found him competent three weeks before the plea hearing but claims Dr. Contreras's subsequent findings of incompetency in 2020 and 2021 demonstrate, in hindsight, that he also was incompetent at the plea hearing. We are not persuaded.
A court may permit a guilty or no contest plea to be withdrawn "for a good cause shown." (Pen. Code, § 1018; People v. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415.) Although Penal Code section 1018 is not expressly applicable to delinquency proceedings, "the principles that underlie the statute have been imported into delinquency proceedings." (In re Matthew N. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1420 (Matthew N.); People v. Mortera (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 861, 865 ["Juvenile courts routinely entertain motions to withdraw admissions"].) We review an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea for abuse of discretion. (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254.)
It is undisputed that Dr. Collister informed the juvenile court of his opinion that appellant was competent to proceed with the 2019 plea. Appellant clarifies in his reply brief that his claim of "abuse of discretion is due to an absence of adequate consideration of the subsequent reports issued by Dr. Contreras, where appellant was evaluated twice as being incompetent to participate in legal proceedings."
Appellant acknowledges that "a lack of competence stemming from a mental disorder at one point in time is not probative of a different point in time." (Matthew N., supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.) Appellant also concedes "the juvenile court took pains to attempt to ensure that appellant understood the nature of the [plea] proceedings, and his rights." He contends "the very nature of a motion to withdraw a plea suggests that newly discovered matters color and affect the validity of the plea, and . . . these newly discovered circumstances call for an in-depth reevaluation and reconsideration of all that was believed to be true at the time of the admission."
Appellant cites no authority supporting this contention. He has failed to show that Dr. Contreras's determinations of incompetency in 2020 and 2021 have any bearing on Dr. Collister's determination of competency in 2019. (See Matthew N., supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.) In the absence of any indication of incompetency at the time of the 2019 plea, the juvenile court appropriately heard (and denied) appellant's motion to withdraw his admissions. There is no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J.