Opinion
C080049
01-05-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL A. MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 13F6100, 15F6495)
Defendant Paul A. Martinez appeals from a judgment entered following (1) a finding that he violated the conditions of his probation in case number 13F6100, and (2) his no contest plea to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) in case number 15F6495. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years one day in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends his no contest plea in case number 15F6495 must be set aside because it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.
I. DISCUSSION
In light of the issue raised on appeal, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
When a defendant enters a guilty plea, the trial court is required to ensure that the plea is knowing and voluntary. The court must (1) advise defendant of his constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses against him, and against self-incrimination, and (2) obtain defendant's waivers of those rights. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1175, 1177, 1179 (Howard); see Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243-244 (Boykin); In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 130-133 (Tahl), overruled on other grounds in Mills v. Mun. Court for the San Diego Judicial Dist. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288, 307.) A failure to give admonishments or obtain waivers is harmless if the record affirmatively shows the plea was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. (Howard, supra, at p. 1175; People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 179.) In applying the totality of circumstances test, a reviewing court must review the entire record, not just the record of the plea colloquy, and a defendant's previous experience in the criminal justice system is relevant to his knowledge and sophistication regarding his legal rights. (Id. at pp. 179-180.)
The required admonitions are commonly referred to as Boykin/Tahl admonitions or Boykin/Tahl advisements.
Here, the trial court accepted defendant's no contest plea in case number 15F6495 without expressly advising him of his rights under Boykin/Tahl. The record, however, reflects that defendant was advised of his constitutional rights by his attorney prior to entering his plea. At the plea hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that he had read most of the plea form to defendant, and that defendant understood his constitutional rights. The Judicial Council plea form executed by defendant contains his signature and an "X" in each of the boxes next to the explanation of his rights under Boykin/Tahl. When the trial court asked defendant whether he had placed his initials in the right hand column of the plea form, defendant responded, "Yes, I did." Defendant also told the trial court that he had plenty of time to talk with his attorney about his constitutional rights.
The plea form is Judicial Council form CR-101. In addition to defendant's signature, the form is also signed by defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court judge.
In addition to the plea form and the record of the plea colloquy, the record discloses that defendant has some familiarity with the criminal justice system because he has sustained prior convictions. In February 2014, defendant pleaded no contest in case number 13F6100 to violating Penal Code section 4532, subdivision (a)(1), attempting to escape custody. The Judicial Council plea form in that case contains defendant's initials in the boxes next to the explanation of his rights under Boykin/Tahl.
In case number 15F6495, defendant entered his no contest plea in July 2015. --------
Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the record establishes that defendant's no contest plea was knowing and voluntary. The record reflects that defendant was aware of and waived his constitutional rights under Boykin/Tahl. There is nothing in the record to raise a doubt as to whether defendant understood and knowingly waived his rights. (See In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277, 285-286 [a validly executed plea form is a proper substitute for a personal admonishment of Boykin/Tahl rights when there are no circumstances which might indicate that the plea is otherwise involuntary], disapproved on other grounds in Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1174-1178.)
We are unpersuaded by defendant's suggestion that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he placed an "X," rather than his initials, in the boxes on the plea form next to the explanation of his rights under Boykin/Tahl. While defendant correctly notes that he did not initial the relevant boxes in the plea form, a review of the form reveals that he used an "X" instead of his initials to indicate that he understood his rights under Boykin/Tahl. Only three boxes on the entire plea form are initialed. The initials appear on the first two pages of the plea form. Each of the remaining boxes is marked with an "X," a horizontal line through the box, or the letters "N/A." Under the circumstances of this case, we construe the "X" marks in the plea form as an acknowledgement by defendant that he understood the statements next to the marks, including his rights under Boykin/Tahl.
II. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
MAURO, Acting P. J. /S/_________
MURRAY, J.