Opinion
E072229
09-26-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUCIO REYES, Defendant and Appellant.
Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1501693) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M. McCann, Judge. Affirmed. Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Lucio Reyes, filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. After counsel filed a notice of appeal and an attorney from Appellate Defenders, Inc. filed an amended notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
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, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) whether this court can reach that issue without a certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated the preliminary hearing transcript would provide the factual basis for the plea. We take our recitation of the facts from the preliminary hearing transcript.
An officer dispatched to an apartment knocked on the door; the reporting party answered. He identified himself as the son of defendant and the victim. The son directed the officer to the back bedroom, which the officer entered.
The officer observed "two subjects inside"; "[o]ne was lying on the bed and the other was lying [facedown] on the ground." Defendant was the individual lying on the bed.
As the officer walked through the living room to the bedroom, she noticed an open door leading to a bathroom; inside she observed a large pool of blood on the floor and counter; there was also a large metal knife with blood on it on the countertop.
The officer later spoke with defendant and the victim's daughter. The daughter told the officer that defendant had recently been deported, but had come back to the victim's residence within the last week. Defendant had been aggressive and argumentative with the victim. Defendant had threatened to kill the victim in the past.
A detective was dispatched to the residence to investigate a possible homicide. He interviewed defendant and the victim's son, who said he was living in the victim's apartment. The son said defendant had moved into the victim's apartment as well. The son reported that defendant and the victim did not get along, that defendant had been "obsessive" with the victim through the last several years of their relationship, and that the victim was not happy defendant was staying in the apartment.
Defendant had been deported six years earlier and returned two weeks before he moved into the victim's apartment. The son said his parents had a volatile relationship and that defendant had been violent toward the victim in the past. The son said that on numerous occasions, defendant had said that if he could not have the victim, no one would. Two weeks prior to the incident, one of the victim's other sons "had slipped up and mentioned something about a relationship that [the victim] was in with another male and . . . [defendant] became extremely upset
The son said he had been sleeping when his brother called and woke him; his brother asked if he had seen the victim because she had not shown up to pick him up from school. The son went into the victim's room where the victim was lying facedown at the foot of the bed; defendant was lying on the bed; they both appeared dead.
Another officer assisting in the investigation responded to the apartment and was present while the coroner inspected the victim. The officer observed multiple lacerations all over the victim's head. He was also present during the autopsy; the doctor performing the autopsy indicated the cause of the victim's death was blunt force trauma; the manner of death was homicide.
The People charged defendant by information with murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1.) Defendant later entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of second degree murder.
As part of the plea, defendant initialed a provision of his plea agreement indicating: "I am not now under the influence of alcohol, or of any drugs, narcotics, medicine, or any other substance which could interfere with my ability to understand what I am doing . . . ." Defense counsel, although not joining in the plea, signed the plea agreement reflecting that she "personally observed the Defendant sign said Declaration." The court asked defendant if he had signed and initialed the plea declaration; defendant responded that he had. Defendant said he understood everything on the plea form. The court asked defense counsel if she was satisfied that defendant understood everything on the declaration; counsel responded that she was.
Defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea. Defense counsel contended that defendant "appeared in court and entered his plea . . . after he was given prescribed mood altering medication. Due to the medication, his thoughts were not clear and his ability to think clearly was impaired causing him to misunderstand the consequences of his plea."
Defendant subsequently made a Marsden motion, which the court heard and denied. Nonetheless, the court appointed conflict counsel to represent defendant with respect to the motion to withdraw the plea.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. --------
Conflict counsel later filed a motion to withdraw the plea upon the grounds that defense counsel had not joined in the plea, that defendant was not eager to enter the plea, and that he was on multiple medications at the time of the plea. The People filed opposition, maintaining defendant had failed his burden to show good cause to withdraw the plea. After a hearing on the motions, the court denied the motions without prejudice to defendant demonstrating that he was on a new medication or on a new dosage on the day he entered the plea.
At the following hearing, conflict counsel stated that defendant had not been on any new medication or different dosage on the day he entered the plea. The court confirmed its denial of the motions to withdraw the plea. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the 15-year-to-life term of imprisonment specified in the plea agreement.
Conflict counsel filed the original notice of appeal which challenged the validity of the plea and requested issuance of a certificate of probable cause. The court denied the request.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.