People v. Campbell CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 3/20/14 P. v. Campbell CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063353
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240486)
CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia
Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Heather M.
Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christopher Campbell pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,
§ 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 admitted the weapon used to commit the assault was a vehicle
(Veh. Code, § 13351.5) and admitted one prior serious/violent felony conviction (§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i)). One month later, Campbell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
contending the court and trial counsel did not properly advise him that a direct and
substantial consequence of pleading guilty was a lifetime revocation of his driver's
license. In addition, he contended his attorney pressured him to enter the plea and did not
mark on the plea form that his driver's license would be revoked for life as a result of his
plea. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, Campbell contends the court prejudicially erred by denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea because his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently or
voluntarily. The court neither advised him that loss of driving privileges was a direct and
significant lifelong consequence of his plea nor corrected trial counsel's error in omitting
it from the list of consequences on the plea agreement form. We affirm the order denying
Campbell's motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2012, Jade Howard looked out her window and saw Campbell and
another man back a white truck into her driveway. The men took appliances from the
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2
side yard of Howard's home and began loading them onto the truck.2 Howard inquired
as to whether the men had permission to take the items, and Campbell replied that
"Mrs. Walker" had told them they could.3 After Howard called her mother to confirm
the men did not have permission to take the appliances, she instructed the men to put the
items back, to which Campbell replied, "My bad. I'll put them back."
A short time later, Howard observed through her window that the men placed only
one appliance back in her driveway and were quickly strapping the remaining appliances
in the back of the truck. Howard walked outside and stood in front of the truck, again
instructing the men to put the remaining appliances back. Campbell and the other man
quickly got into the truck, with Campbell entering the driver's side of the vehicle.
Campbell then started the truck and immediately drove toward Howard to leave.
Although Howard attempted to step backward, Campbell quickly turned the truck and hit
Howard, knocking her to the ground and injuring her wrist. Campbell sped away from
the home and later turned himself in at a police substation.
In June 2012, Campbell pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon in
violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1). He further admitted that the weapon used to
commit the offense was a vehicle as provided in Vehicle Code section 13351.5 and that
he had one prior serious/violent felony conviction. The plea agreement provided
2 Campbell contends he was "scrapping" by going to homes and asking homeowners
for recyclables. He alleges that he attempted to contact Howard, and when she did not
answer the door, he took it upon himself to take the appliances.
3 At the preliminary hearing, Howard testified that she does not know anyone
named "Mrs. Walker."
3
Campbell would serve a stipulated sentence of six years to run concurrently with a
probation/parole violation of two years. The record shows the court advised Campbell of
his constitutional rights and of the consequences of pleading guilty, and found that he
understood and voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights and made his plea and
admissions voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences.
At the sentencing hearing in July 2012, the court granted Campbell's request for a
Marsden4 hearing. The court determined Campbell was requesting to withdraw his guilty
plea and was seeking new counsel. In September 2012, Campbell filed a motion under
section 1018 to withdraw his guilty plea, stating he was not advised of the consequence
of permanently losing his driver's license. At the evidentiary hearing on the motion in
November 2012, the court heard testimony from Campbell and his trial counsel on the
matter. The trial court denied Campbell's motion, finding Campbell had been advised by
his trial counsel of the permanent loss of his driving privileges. Campbell timely filed a
notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we apply an abuse of
discretion standard. (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1223, 1254.) " 'Discretion is
abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the
circumstances before it being considered. The burden is on the party complaining to
4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118.
4
establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless
there has been a miscarriage of justice[,] a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion
and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power.' " (Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 557, 566.)
B. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Campbell contends the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea because the court was obligated to advise him about the permanent loss of his
driving privilege, a direct and significant consequence of his plea. In addition, he
contends the court erred because it did not correct the plea form's omission of permanent
loss of driving privileges as a consequence of the plea.
1. Guiding Principles
The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to section 245, subdivision (a)(1),
and Vehicle Code section 13351.5. In addition to setting the term of imprisonment at
"two, three, or four years" in state prison, Vehicle Code section 13351.5 provides that if a
person has been convicted of a felony in violation of section 245 "and that a vehicle was
found by the court to constitute the deadly weapon or instrument used to commit that
offense, the department immediately shall revoke the privilege of that person to drive a
motor vehicle."
Courts may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea on a showing of good cause, which
should be "liberally construed to . . . promote justice." (§ 1018.) Good cause can be
established when a plea was entered as a result of "[m]istake, ignorance or any other
5
factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment . . . ." (People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal. 3d
562, 566.) To justify withdrawal of a guilty plea, the defendant has the burden to show,
by clear and convincing evidence, that good cause exists. (People v. Wharton (1991) 53
Cal. 3d 522, 585; People v. Nance (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 1453, 1457.)
In all guilty plea and submission cases, the trial court must first, before accepting a
plea of guilty, advise the defendant of all direct consequences of the conviction. (Bunnell
v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 592, 605.) "A consequence is deemed to be 'direct' if
it has ' " 'a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the
defendant's punishment' " ' " that stems directly from the criminal conviction itself.
(People v. Moore (1998) 69 Cal. App. 4th 626, 630, citing Torrey v. Estelle (9th Cir. 1988)
842 F.2d 234, 236.) The mandatory revocation or suspension of driving privileges is one
such direct consequence. (See Corley v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1990) 222
Cal. App. 3d 72, 76 [noting suspension of driver's license under Vehicle Code section
13352 is a direct consequence of guilty plea requiring advisement]; People v. Dakin
(1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 1026, 1033 [same].)
However, "the rule compelling an admonishment of the consequences of an
admission which may subject the defendant to severe sanctions is a judicially declared
rule of criminal procedure. [(In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 857, 864.)]" (People v.
Wright (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 487, 495; see Bunnell v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d at
p. 605.) "Because these advisements are not constitutionally compelled, their omission
6
does not require reversal unless the error is prejudicial to the accused." (People v. Dakin,
supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 1033.)
2. Analysis
At the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Campbell and his trial
counsel testified. Campbell testified his trial counsel did not explain the maximum
possible penalty he could receive, that he would be waiving his constitutional rights, and
did not go through the plea form with him; the "only reason" he entered a guilty plea was
because his trial counsel told him he was facing a possible sentence of 25 years to life.
Campbell's trial counsel testified that he discussed with Campbell the possible
consequences of not accepting the plea deal, the rights Campbell would waive by
pleading guilty, and specifically that it was likely his driver's license would be revoked
for the rest of his life. Trial counsel testified that Campbell never expressed a lack of
understanding or hesitation when entering into the plea on the record. When the court
questioned trial counsel regarding why he neglected to circle on the plea form the
permanent loss of driver's license as a potential consequence of the plea, he stated that he
was more concerned with Campbell's "status as a three-striker and his consequences of 25
to life" along with the possibility of an additional robbery charge and other enhancements
that would have resulted in not only the loss of Campbell's driver's license, but the "loss
of his freedom for the rest of his life."
After considering the testimony of Campbell and his trial counsel, the court ruled
as follows:
7
"[The] Court finds [counsel's] testimony to be quite credible in that
he believes specifically discussing [the loss of driving privileges]
with you [i.e., Campbell, and] that he went over that particular
consequence. And that although that particular circle was left off the
Change of Plea form, he had indicated that he was more concerned
with getting you the offer that he got you versus, perhaps,
overlooking checking all of the potential consequences of the plea.
But in light of his testimony . . . the Court finds [counsel] to be quite
credible. [¶] [T]he Court finds [trial counsel's] testimony to be
credible, believes you were, in fact, advised of that consequence, and
therefore the Court is going to deny your motion to withdraw your
plea."
Here, the record shows the court determined trial counsel's testimony was "quite
credible" that counsel specifically discussed with Campbell the lifetime revocation of his
driving privileges before Campbell entered his guilty plea. We have no basis to disturb
this finding on appeal. (See People v. Fairbank, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1254 [noting that
on appeal, "a reviewing court must adopt the trial court's factual findings if substantial
evidence supports them"]; see also People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 525, 533
[same].)
Campbell also contends the trial court was itself obligated to inform him of the
direct consequences of his guilty plea. However, as noted, there is no constitutional
requirement that defendants be advised of the direct consequences of a guilty plea. (See
People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 1013, 1022, overruled on other grounds in People v.
Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 177, 183.)
Because the failure to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea does
not constitute constitutional error, we conclude the court did not err when it denied
Campbell's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Despite Campbell's testimony that he was
8
never informed about the driver's license consequences of his plea, the record shows the
trial court fulfilled its duty by specifically admonishing him about the constitutional
rights he was giving up and making a determination as to whether his guilty plea was
entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Moreover, the record shows
Campbell also indicated that he understood the contents and consequences contained in
the change of plea forms and that he had ample time to go over the change of plea forms
with trial counsel, who, as noted, advised Campbell he could permanently lose his
driver's license as a result of the plea. We conclude the court did not err when it did not
expressly advise Campbell at the time of accepting his plea that he could permanently
lose his driver's license as a result of the plea.
Campbell further contends his guilty plea was the product of undue pressure from
trial counsel, who did not give him sufficient time to discuss the options available to him.
However, Campbell's direct testimony at the change of plea hearing explicitly refutes this
contention. The record shows he testified at the hearing that he had ample time to go
over the change of plea forms with his counsel and that he understood the constitutional
rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. Apart from Campbell's own statements, there
is no evidence in the record of any alleged undue pressure from trial counsel to accept the
plea.
The evidence Campbell presented did not clearly and convincingly establish the
good cause necessary for withdrawal of his guilty plea. Given the court's finding
supported by substantial evidence in the record that his trial counsel did in fact advise
9
him of the potential to permanently lose his driving privilege, we conclude the court
properly exercised its discretion in denying Campbell's motion to withdraw the guilty
plea.
Finally, even assuming the trial court erred in denying Campbell's motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, we conclude that error was harmless. Because trial courts are
not constitutionally required to advise criminal defendants of the direct consequences of
pleading guilty, a criminal defendant is entitled to have the guilty plea set aside "only if
the error is prejudicial to the accused." (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 315, 321,
italics added.) To establish prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate it is reasonably
probable that he or she would not have entered the plea if not for the error. (People v.
Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d. at p. 1023; see also People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 818,
837 [holding that regardless of the court's error in permitting certain cross-examination of
defendant, "it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would
have been reached"].)
Here, as noted by his trial counsel, Campbell faced a substantial sentence if he did
not plead guilty and was convicted as charged, and his argument that he would not have
pleaded guilty had he been advised specifically by the trial court of the permanent loss of
his driver's license is not persuasive. Campbell faced at least 25 years to life in prison as
a third-strike offender for assault using a vehicle as a deadly weapon. In addition, he
faced the possibility of an additional charge for robbery and two other enhancements that
would increase his term by 10 years, for a total of 35 years minimum. However, under
10
the plea agreement he admitted to only one prior serious/violent felony conviction,
received a stipulated term of six years in prison to run concurrently with any probation or
parole violation, and the prosecution agreed to drop the additional robbery charge.5
Because his trial counsel did inform him of the lifetime license revocation in
addition to the substantial sentence Campbell faced if he did not accept the plea
agreement, it is unlikely that the court's reiteration of trial counsel's advice regarding the
permanent loss of driving privileges would have influenced his decision to plead guilty.
We conclude that even if the court erred in not also advising Campbell he could
permanently lose his driver's license if he pleaded guilty, that error was harmless. (See
People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 837.)
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
Campbell contends, and the People agree, that the abstract of judgment in this case
incorrectly provides the two-year sentence following probation revocation in Case
No. SCE313895 shall run consecutively to the six-year sentence in this case. Those two
sentences were set by the trial court to run concurrently. Therefore, the abstract of
judgment must be corrected.
5 The trial court denied probation and sentenced Campbell to the middle term of
three years under section 245, doubled to six years because of the admitted prior
serious/violent felony conviction.
11
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to correct the
abstract of judgment as set forth in this opinion and to forward a copy of the correct
abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
12