Opinion
B296012
03-05-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM RICHARD WESTFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul Stubb Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA143786) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke, II, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Stubb Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
We address this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On November 2, 2018 appellant Adam Richard Westfield was charged in an amended information with one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187; Count 1); two counts of injuring a spouse, cohabitant, boyfriend, girlfriend, or child's parent, within seven years of a prior conviction for felony assault after a prior conviction (§273.5, subd. (f)(1); Counts 2 and 5); false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; Count 3); mayhem (§ 203; Count 4); and two counts of attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2); Counts 6 and 7).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
It was further alleged as to Counts 1, 2, and 3 that Westfield personally inflicted great bodily injury to the victim under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
It was further alleged as to all counts Westfield suffered a prior conviction of a serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1); had been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12, subdivision (b); and that an executed sentence must be served in state prison as a result of a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 1170, subdivision (h). As to Counts 1-6, it was alleged Westfield suffered five prison priors within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and seven prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
On November 6, 2018, Westfield pleaded guilty to Count 2 in exchange for a dismissal of the remaining counts. During the plea Westfield was advised he would serve a total of 20 years, comprised of the high term on Count 2, which is five years, doubled to 10 years for the prior strike; five years for causing great bodily injury to the victim; and five years for a prior felony conviction. Westfield was also advised that his maximum exposure if convicted of all counts and allegations was 36 years in state prison. Westfield expressed confusion, and his counsel clarified that he would admit he had a prior strike, which doubled the prison term on Count 2. Westfield replied, "All right." The court asked, "Any other questions?" to which Westfield replied, "No." The prosecutor asked, "Do you want to take the 20 years, Mr. Westfield?" Westfield replied, "Yes."
The prosecutor then described the charges and told Westfield the People would dismiss the remaining counts in exchange for his plea of guilty to Count 2. Westfield asked whether every count against one specified victim would be dismissed, to which the People replied, "Yes." Westfield replied, "Yeah. All right." The prosecutor stated Westfield would plead to Count 2, which was the domestic assault against the other victim and asked Westfield if he understood. Westfield replied, "Yes, Ma'am." The prosecutor asked again, "Do you understand the People's offer?" Westfield replied, "Yes, Ma'am."
The prosecutor asked Westfield whether, after speaking to his attorney about the charges, allegations, plea offer, and possible defenses, Westfield wished to enter a plea of guilty or no contest to Count 2 and accept the 20 years. Westfield replied, "Yes, Ma'am." The prosecutor described the constitutional rights Westfield would waive if he accepted the plea offer and asked Westfield whether he understood each of the rights. Westfield replied, "Yep, yep, yep."
Westfield frequently replied with the word "Yep" instead of "Yes," and the court each time said it would take the answer as a "Yes." --------
Westfield was informed of the consequence of his plea, including that he was pleading to a strike and would therefore have a total of two strikes on his record, subjecting him to a 25-year-to-life sentence if he were convicted of certain felony convictions in the future. When asked whether he understood he was pleading to a strike, Westfield replied, "Yep, yep." When asked if he still wanted to enter into the plea, Westfield replied, "Yep, yep."
Westfield stated he wanted to be present at the restitution hearing; the prosecutor informed him he could be present. He stated he did not want to be sentenced that day, but sometime after Christmas instead. He waived his right to be sentenced within 20 days of taking the plea and the court scheduled sentencing for a date after Christmas.
The prosecutor asked Westfield whether he understood all the consequences of his plea, to which he replied, "Somewhat, yep, yep." The court stated, "No, I don't want it to be somewhat. I need you to fully understand it." Westfield replied, "I understand." The prosecutor stated, "You need to fully understand the consequences of your plea." Westfield said, "I understand." He was asked "Are you pleading freely and voluntarily?" Westfield replied, "Yep." The prosecutor asked, "Is that a yes?" to which Westfield replied, "Yep, yep."
The court asked Westfield, "Do you have any other questions?" Westfield replied, "No, sir." The court then asked, "And this is something you want to do?" to which Westfield replied, "Yeah." The court asked, "And you want to go through with it; correct?" "Through with what?" Westfield asked. The court replied, "Go through with this plea." Westfield replied, "Yeah."
The prosecutor proceeded to take Westfield's plea. He pleaded no contest to Count 2. As to the allegations and enhancements, Westfield had some questions, and the court and prosecutor clarified the meaning and consequences of admitting the allegations under section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1); section 12022.7, subdivision (b); section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12, subdivision (b). The court found Westfield's plea and waivers were knowing, intelligent, free, and voluntary and that he understood the charges and consequences of his plea and waivers. The court accepted Westfield's plea.
On January 22, 2019, Westfield filed an amended motion to withdraw his plea. Westfield stated he was a mental health patient and went to court without his psychiatric medications. Therefore, he argued, he suffered from a " 'possible mental impairment' " at the time he entered into the plea, subjecting him to "factors overcoming the exercise of free judgment." In his attached declaration, Westfield stated he had ADHD, post traumatic stress disorder, and chronic depression. He stated he was prescribed psychiatric medication, but forgot to take his medication on the morning of November 6, 2018 when he pleaded no contest. Consequently, he stated, he was "not in his right frame of mind" that day.
At the hearing on the motion, the People and the court accepted as true that Westfield was on the medications he set forth in his declaration, and that he did not take them the morning of the plea. The People stated it conducted a quick search on the medications Westfield was taking, and nothing about them or their side effects indicated they would impair a person's ability to understand or comprehend.
The People also pointed out there had been many discussions "back and forth" about the People's offer "for quite some time" before Westfield took the plea, including a discussion of a counteroffer. "[F]or a very long time before November the 6th," the People argued, "Westfield was made aware of what the People's offer was. This was not a new offer that he pled to. This was an offer that the People had previously extended to him . . . . So . . . it's [the People's] position that the defendant was aware of what he was pleading to." The People pointed out there was a discussion about the offer on November 5, 2018, the day before Westfield accepted the plea deal on November 6, 2018. The People also noted they had records of numerous jail calls Westfield had with a male relative in which he discussed the People's offer.
Westfield testified that he was taking an anti-depressant and a mood stabilizer. He stated if he doesn't take the mood stabilizer, he doesn't "make clear and rational decisions and judgments, such as like going to the shower without my shower shoes, or getting in the shower without my soap, and things like that, of that nature." His counsel asked whether Westfield could carry on a conversation with people if he missed his medication. Westfield replied, "Yeah, but it puts me in like not in the right state of mind." Westfield testified when he took the plea, he did not understand "admitting to prior strikes and other things such as that nature." He testified it was not explained to him that one of his prior convictions was a strike and that he did not know he was admitting to inflicting great bodily injury.
The court stated it reviewed the transcript of the plea, and recited the numerous times Westfield stated he understood the charges and the People's offer, admitted the strike, understood all of his rights, and stated he wanted to enter into a deal for a 20-year sentence, The court stated other aspects of the proceedings that showed Westfield was aware of what he was pleading to.
The court also described the November 5, 2018 hearing, which took place a day before Westfield took his plea and in which Westfield asked the court to "break . . . down" the charges in the plea offer to him. At that hearing, the People explained Westfield would plead to the high term of five years on Count 2, which would be doubled to 10 years, along with five years for the great bodily injury allegation and five years for the section 667, subdivision (a) allegation. The court at that point noticed a puzzled look on Westfield's place; the court therefore further explained the charges. At the end of that hearing, Westfield refused the offer.
As discussed above, on the following day, November 6, 2018, the charges and allegations were again explained to Westfield in detail, along with the consequences of the plea.
The court found Westfield "failed to meet the heavy burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that his decision to accept the People's deal was based on mistake, fraud, ignorance, or duress." The court proceeded to sentence Westfield to 20 years in prison pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain.
Westfield filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause on February 7, 2019 challenging the denial of his motion for a new trial. On February 19, 2019, the court granted Westfield's certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent Westfield on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. On November 5, 2019, we advised Westfield he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
"On application of the defendant at any time before judgment . . . the court may, . . . for a good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted." (§ 1018.) " '[M]istake, ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea.' " (People v. Simmons (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1466; People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566.) Good cause must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. (Ibid.) A reviewing court upholds a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea unless there is a " ' "clear showing of abuse of discretion." ' " (People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1096.) Ultimately, guilty pleas " ' "should not be set aside lightly and finality of proceedings should be encouraged." ' " (Ibid.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Westfield's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, J. We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WILEY, J.