People v. Gobin CA2/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Gobin CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B315920
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA120917)
v.
BRYAN CHRISTOPHER
GOBIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Rogelio G. Delgado, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, 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, Assistant
Attorney General, Jason Tran and Kristen J. Inberg, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
THE COURT.
Defendant and appellant Bryan Christopher Gobin appeals
from the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his
plea of no contest to a stalking charge. He requests this court
“reverse the lower court’s denial of his motion and remand the
matter to allow appellant to withdraw his plea.”
Penal Code1 section 1018, the basis of defendant’s motion
to withdraw his plea, provides in pertinent part: “On application
of the defendant at any time before judgment or within six
months after an order granting probation is made if entry of
judgment is suspended, the court may, and in case of a defendant
who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea the court
shall, for a good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be
withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. . . . This section
shall be liberally construed to effect these objects and to promote
justice.” (§ 1018.)
Defendant correctly argues that a factor overcoming the
free exercise of judgment is good cause to withdraw a plea (People
v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566), but fails to show the trial
court abused its discretion in concluding that defendant did not
meet that standard. Although there was some evidence that a
few days before his plea, defendant’s “linear” thinking was
diminished, the trial court was not required to credit that
testimony and there was conflicting evidence, which the trial
court could have credited. The record supports defendant’s
assertion that he suffered from one or more mental illnesses
 Rothschild, P. J., Bendix, J., Weingart, J.
1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2
(which the mental health court twice found did not render him
mentally incompetent), but not his conclusion that his mental
illness overcame his free exercise of judgment.
We affirm the trial court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2019, the People filed a complaint against
defendant. On the same day, the trial court appointed a public
defender to represent defendant. On October 10, 2019, the trial
court declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competency and
suspended proceedings. A defendant is incompetent to stand
trial if he or she lacks a “ ‘ “ ‘ “sufficient present ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding—[or lacks] . . . a rational as well as a factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.” ’ [Citations.]”
[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986,
1032.) On October 25, 2019, the mental health court found
defendant mentally competent, and criminal proceedings
resumed.
This case involved at least four different judicial officers.
The judicial officer who denied defendant’s motion to withdraw
his plea was not the same one who took the plea. This case also
involved at least four defense attorneys.
1. Information
On February 4, 2020, the People filed an information
alleging one count of criminal threats and one count of stalking.
Defendant’s now ex-wife was the alleged victim of both counts.
That same day, defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts.
3
2. Defendant successfully petitions for mental health
diversion
On February 26, 2020, defendant filed a petition to be
placed on mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. 2
2 Section 1001.36 provides in pertinent part:
“(b) A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion pursuant
to this section if both of the following criteria are met: [¶]
(1) The defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder
as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited
to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or
post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial
personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and
pedophilia. Evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder shall be
provided by the defense and shall include a diagnosis or
treatment for a diagnosed mental disorder within the last five
years by a qualified mental health expert. In opining that a
defendant suffers from a qualifying disorder, the qualified mental
health expert may rely on an examination of the defendant, the
defendant’s medical records, arrest reports, or any other relevant
evidence.
“(2) The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant
factor in the commission of the charged offense. If the defendant
has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find
that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in
the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or
contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged
offense. A court may consider any relevant and credible evidence,
including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing
transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s
mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or
reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the
4
In the context of that motion, defendant described the facts
underlying the charges as follows: After defendant’s ex-wife
requested a divorce, defendant sent her 800 to 1,000 text
messages. In one of them, defendant wrote, “If you are thinking
of taking legal action, I will put a $100,000 on your head to make
your life a miserable hell.” In an e-mail to another person,
defendant “wrote about working on a bounty killer start-up and
burning down” a city.
In the context of requesting mental health diversion,
defendant represented that he suffers from a “bipolar 1 disorder,”
and that his mental health symptoms that motivated his criminal
behavior would respond to mental health treatment.
A clinical and forensic psychologist who evaluated
defendant reported that defendant texted his ex-wife because she
sent a process server, which defendant believed “ ‘kicked up my
PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] response . . . .’ ” Defendant
“admitted that he was having paranoid thoughts about his
ex-wife.” Defendant reported having ADHD (attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder) but then also reported, “ ‘I don’t really
think that I have ADHD. I went to a chiropractor, got an
adjustment. I felt awesome. Happy.’ ” Defendant previously had
received mental health treatment and, in 2018, was undergoing
treatment for depression and anxiety, and, in 2019, he
participated in outpatient therapy. Defendant reported to the
psychologist that he was “ ‘appalled’ ” by the text messages he
had sent to his ex-wife.
defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant
mental disorder at or near the time of the offense.”
5
The psychologist concluded defendant suffered from bipolar
disorder, with a manic episode. “He had impaired sleep,
excessive energy, irritability, agitation, impulsive behavior, and
pressured speech. His thoughts raced and were painful and
intrusive. He does have an inflated sense of self—not in the
sense that he feels better than others, but in that he interprets
the actions of other people as being personal attacks and reacts
accordingly. He seems to have some symptoms of thought
disorder as well, including paranoia and somatic symptoms.” “I
do not believe that he suffers from PTSD and I am of the opinion
that bipolar disorder can account for his difficulties with
maintaining concentration.”
The trial court granted defendant’s request for mental
health diversion.
3. The trial court preliminarily revokes mental health
diversion and defendant considers a possible plea
At a February 17, 2021 hearing, the trial court indicated
defendant had violated the terms of his diversion multiple times.
The court stated, “I think we need to bring him back and see
where we’re at. I’m not saying I’m not gonna consider mental
health diversion as an alternative, but it seems to me that he is—
his problems are too great for the relatively loose constrictions of
mental health diversion. It may be something that has to happen
with a probationary sentence. He has demonstrated he cannot
comply with the terms and conditions of mental health
diversion.”
The court recalled the matter later that day and reported
the parties had agreed to a plea deal. Defendant completed a
plea form indicating that the court would sentence him to five
years of probation if he pleaded no contest to the stalking charge.
6
Defendant initialed a box on the form indicating that he was not
suffering from any medical condition and another box indicating
he had no additional questions in connection with the plea.
Defendant indicated he was entering the plea “freely and
voluntarily.” Defendant further checked the box that he was
pleading no contest to take advantage of a plea agreement.
The trial court asked defendant, “Do you want to give up
your right to a hearing on the issue of whether your mental
health diversion should be terminated permanently and criminal
proceedings resumed, or do you want to waive that right, accept
this disposition, and enter a plea in this case?” Defendant
responded, “I understand. . . . My lawyer has been very thorough
in explaining to me the offer that was put on the table, which is
the same offer that was presented to me in October, 2019 before I
spent 438 days in incarceration. I’m quite familiar with the offer
because it was presented in October of 2019. So, yes, I’m aware
of that.”
The court again asked if defendant “want[ed] to have a
hearing on . . . whether I should continue your mental health
diversion . . . .” Defendant responded, “I understand your
question. Yes, Your Honor, I would like to answer it, and the
answer, Your Honor, is it would be so detrimental to my physical
and mental health to be incarcerated at this moment that you
could charge me with murder and I would accept that.” The court
then stated it could not take a waiver “under these kind of
descriptions,” indicated that it did not want to leave him in
custody and would remand him “on the bail previously indicated,”
and preliminarily revoked mental health diversion. The court
then put the matter over for two days. The court indicated it
7
would proceed only if it were clear defendant’s plea was
voluntary.
4. Defendant pleads no contest to stalking
At the outset of the February 19, 2021 hearing, the court
stated, “Based upon the totality of my knowledge of the case, and
his [defendant’s] behavior during the pendency of the case,
including his unsuccessful attempt at diversion—if he wants to
have a hearing on the issue of diversion, as I told you, I’m
disinclined to put him back on diversion. But if he wants a
hearing, I’ll give him a hearing, and make a decision based on
what I hear in the hearing.”
The court indicated that if defendant pleaded guilty or no
contest to the stalking charge, the court would place him on
probation for five years in addition to a 180-day sentence that
defendant already served. The court stated, “He’ll be released
forthwith.” The court indicated if defendant violated a term of
probation including contacting his ex-wife or her family members,
defendant would receive a state prison sentence. Defendant
asked his attorney to “talk on that, please.”
The court told defendant that defendant could accept the
offer or the court would set the case for trial. Defendant
responded, “I’ll accept it, Your Honor. Thank you.” The court
instructed defense counsel to speak to defendant. Defendant and
his counsel conferred privately.
After conferring with defendant, defense counsel reported
that defendant wanted to plead to the stalking charge. The court
again inquired whether defendant wanted a hearing on mental
health diversion, and counsel answered that defendant did not.
The court called a recess to allow defendant to confer with
his attorney. After the recess, defense counsel indicated that
8
defendant “would like to proceed with the plea, Your Honor.”
Defendant stated he understood his rights to a hearing on the
revocation of his mental health diversion and he gave up those
rights.
In the context of a plea colloquy with the court, defendant
asserted he understood the charges against him. Defendant
asserted he understood everything in the plea form and discussed
his rights with his counsel. The court informed defendant that if
he were to go to trial and lose, the maximum time defendant
could be ordered to serve was three years and eight months. The
court further detailed the terms of the sentence defendant would
be ordered to serve if he pleaded no contest: five years felony
probation, 180 days in custody with credit for time served, and a
protective order so that defendant would have no contact with the
victim or her family. The court indicated that defendant should
have no contact with anyone who he knew would interact with
the victim or her family. The trial court indicated that it was
willing to agree to probation because it recognized that defendant
had significant mental health issues. As part of probation, the
trial court required defendant to meet with a therapist once a
week and a psychiatrist once a month.
Defendant asked, “What if it’s in the newspaper?”
Defendant continued, “You know what, Your Honor? Here’s the
thing. I’m an advocate, and I’m just sorry I can’t be an advocate.
I can’t do this anymore. I really have some problems I need to
deal with. I need to fess up and I need to take the time to do
that. So I accept that. It’s very humbling to have to admit to you
I have serious issues I need to deal with. It’s not easy to be a
47-year-old man who lost his job at a Fortune 500 company two
9
and a half years ago because of health issues. I accept these
terms.”
Defendant stated he was “pleading guilty or no contest”
because he believed it was in his “best interests to do so.”
Defendant pleaded no contest to felony stalking. Defense counsel
stipulated to a factual basis based on the pre-plea report and the
preliminary hearing. The court accepted defendant’s plea,
finding that defendant made it “freely, voluntarily entered with
full knowledge of the consequences” and found a factual basis
“based upon the stipulation of counsel . . . .” The court suspended
imposition of the sentence and placed defendant on formal
probation for five years.
The People dismissed the criminal threats charge
“[p]ursuant to the plea remaining in full force and effect.”
After taking the plea the court indicated, “Mr. Gobin, I
wish you the best. I really do. You seem to be extremely
intelligent. . . . As your lawyer has probably told you, if you do a
good job on probation and don’t violate, you can get this charge
reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged from your record so you
don’t have a felony conviction.” Defendant responded, “Your
Honor, I thank you for that mercy.”
5. The People move to revoke defendant’s probation
In June 2021, the People filed a motion seeking revocation
of defendant’s probation on the ground that defendant violated
the terms of his probation by committing new crimes. The
probation revocation request was filed in lieu of a new
prosecution.
The court preliminarily revoked defendant’s probation.
The court set the case for a probation violation hearing.
10
6. Defendant moves to withdraw his no contest plea
On July 20, 2021, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. Defendant argued that “his plea on February 19,
2021 was a result of poor mental health care which included
inappropriate medication management and denial of necessary
services.” Defendant requested to withdraw his plea “[a]s a
result of his well documented mental health issues which
prevented him from providing knowing, intelligent voluntary
waiver and plea in this matter.”
At a hearing two days after defendant filed his motion to
withdraw his plea, defendant stated, “I regret deeply . . . pleading
guilty the first time and made that known to my attorney pretty
much the next day, but now I’m here . . . .” Defendant expressed
concern that while incarcerated, he could not receive treatment
for “A.D.H.D. which affects my ability to concentrate. It affects
my attention.”
On August 18, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on
defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.3 At the outset, counsel
for defendant asserted that the motion was pursuant to
section 1018.
Dr. Amanda Seon-Walker testified in support of defendant
at that hearing and the People stipulated that she was an
expert psychologist. Seon-Walker has treated defendant since
October 2020. Seon-Walker testified, “Mr. Gobin has a lot of
trauma. Mr. Gobin has a lot of anxiety as a result of that
3 For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding
that a defendant may challenge a plea, which resulted in a
probationary sentence after the defendant violated probation and
the parties do not contend otherwise.
11
trauma, and whenever he’s triggered, he tends to have that
trauma come out in very anxious ways; so he does things
impulsively as a result of his trauma.” Seon-Walker further
testified that defendant suffers from attention deficit and
posttraumatic stress disorders. She opined that the
posttraumatic stress disorder “leads to hypervigilance” and the
attention deficit disorder leads to impulsivity. Also according to
Seon-Walker, defendant’s trauma occurred 27 years earlier when
defendant was hospitalized and developed a fear of “being
unlawfully hospitalized.”
Seon-Walker also testified about her virtual session with
defendant on February 16, 2021, the day before defendant signed
the plea form. When she spoke to defendant on February 16,
2021, Seon-Walker described his state as dysphoric, meaning
that “[h]e was very down, lots of feelings of hopelessness, lots of
feelings of sadness.” According to Seon-Walker, any time
defendant “was to come to court, he became increasingly anxious
and increasingly distressed; and so he generally had a lot of
anxiety and a lot of difficulty with making appropriate decisions
prior to court.” Seon-Walker opined defendant “was impacted to
the degree that he was unable to make a rational decision” on
February 16, 2021. Defendant was frustrated that his case was
not “work[ing] in his favor.” Seon-Walker also testified that on
February 16, defendant was “oriented to person, place, time,
situation. He knew where he was. He knew what was going
on. . . . He was more kind of linear in his thinking at that point in
time.”
On February 23, 2021—four days after defendant pleaded
guilty to the stalking charge—Seon-Walker observed that
defendant “was disorganized.” Defendant showed “difficulty
12
sustaining attention . . . feeling restless” and reported
“ ‘struggling with the symptoms that are causing him difficulty in
his occupation, personal, and community arena[.]’ ” Defendant
felt “humiliated and powerless.” Defendant reported to Seon-
Walker that he “wants to be able to see the beauty of the world
and realizes that he does not have clear judgment.” Between
February 16 and February 23, defendant “had some difficulty
understanding issues,” which Seon-Walker attributed to the fact
defendant was not taking a medication that “assists with . . . the
linear thinking piece.” On February 23, 2021, Seon-Walker
believed defendant “had an understanding of the consequences of
his actions.”
On cross-examination, Dr. Seon-Walker testified she
thought all defendants suffer anxiety prior to court appearances.
Dr. Seon-Walker stated that on February 16, 2021, defendant
was “oriented and alert” and knew he was going to court the
following day. According to Seon-Walker, on February 16th,
defendant was able to respond to questions in a linear fashion.
On February 23, 2021, defendant told Seon-Walker what
happened in court. Defendant understood that he could have his
case reduced to a misdemeanor and was able to reflect about
what happened in court.
Defendant also testified at the hearing on his motion to
withdraw his plea. He stated that at that time (the time of the
hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea), his mental health
issues were “pretty bad” because he had not had treatment for
over two months in custody. At the time of the hearing on his
motion to withdraw his plea, defendant had a “dreadful fog that’s
distorting my mind’s eye, kind of clouding my perception of
reality and thus impairing my judgment and ability to ingest and
13
process data. I am a little bit more prone to be emotionally
overwhelmed when I [am] rushed. I am suffering from losses and
short-term memory. My attention is not as good as it normally is.
My concentration is impaired. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for
stress, and my emotional well-being is not particularly good given
that I have a serious amount of pain due to two car accidents,
and I am receiving no medication for pain while I am in custody.
And for two or three days out of the week, I’m experiencing
disturbing levels of anxiety and depression, and sometimes I’m
just a bit impulsive.” Defendant testified that he was
“emotionally distraught,” “short tempered,” “incredibly irritable,”
and “anxious.”
Defendant also testified that from February 17, 2021 to
February 19, 2021 (the dates between signing the plea form and
accepting the plea), he received no medication and was unable to
sleep. Defendant testified that he was in county jail for those two
days. Defendant said that he completed the plea form to “end
this torture.” According to defendant, he had “no ability to
reason through in a rational manner what is going to happen if I,
you know, give away all of my rights, which, you know, I didn’t
realize what I did until I actually started getting proper
medication a few weeks later when I got a real psychiatrist . . . .”
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw the
plea. The court found no evidence that defendant was “so out of
sorts or unable to understand the proceedings . . . .” “He had
apparently an offer on the 17th. They gave him two days to think
about it. He comes back and he takes it.”
14
7. After defendant is found mentally competent, he
admits to violating the terms of his probation
At an August 26, 2021, after the court denied his motion to
withdraw his plea, the court held a hearing on the alleged
probation violation. Based on defendant’s behavior during the
proceedings, the trial court suspended the hearing and set the
matter for a mental competency hearing. The mental health
court found defendant competent to stand trial. On October 8,
2021, defendant admitted to violating his probation. The trial
court imposed the low term of 16 months for the stalking charge.4
DISCUSSION
Relying on defendant’s “mental illness brought on in part
by his not having access to needed medications that treated his
ADD,” defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to withdraw his plea. We conclude the trial court acted
within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.
“ ‘Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a
waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state
criminal trial.’ [Citation.] These include the privilege against
self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to
confrontation.” (People v. Farwell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 295, 299.)
When a defendant pleads guilty, “the record must demonstrate
that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his
constitutional trial rights.” (Id. at p. 300.)
4 Defendant did not timely appeal from the order denying
his motion to withdraw his plea and did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause. This court granted him relief, and the trial court
ultimately issued a certificate of probable cause.
15
“A court may permit a guilty or no contest plea to be
withdrawn ‘for good cause shown,’ ” and the showing must be
made by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Dillard (2017)
8 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 (Dillard).) “ ‘Mistake, ignorance or any
other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good
cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea’ ” under section 1018, the
statute on which defendant based his motion to withdraw his
plea. (People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894.) “A plea
may not be withdrawn simply because a defendant has changed
his or her mind.” (Dillard, at p. 665.)
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for
abuse of discretion and defer to the trial court’s credibility
determinations. (Dillard, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 665.) “The
discretion exercised by a court ‘ “is not a capricious or arbitrary
discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in
its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion,
to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in
conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve
and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.”
[Citation.] An exercise of discretion is subject to reversal on
appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown.
[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Perez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th
736, 742.) ‘ “ ‘ “[W]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be
deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to
substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’ ” ’ [Citations.]”
(In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 641.)
Turning to this case, defendant demonstrates no abuse of
discretion. First, no witness testified that defendant’s mental
illness overcame exercise of his free judgment. Seon-Walker did
testify that defendant “was unable to make a rational decision”
16
on February 16, 2021, the day before defendant signed the plea
form and three days before his plea. She did not meet with him
on the day he entered his plea. She also testified that because on
February 16, 2021, defendant was not taking medication, he had
“some difficulty understanding issues . . . .”
Seon-Walker, however, contradicted her own testimony
when she testified that on February 16, 2021, defendant “was
able to respond . . . in a linear fashion.” Further on February 23,
2021, when Seon-Walker met with defendant, he “was able to
reflect about what happened in court . . . .” The trial court could
have credited Seon-Walker’s testimony that defendant was able
to think linearly and to reflect on the court proceedings when it
concluded defendant failed to show by clear and convincing
evidence good cause to withdraw his plea.
Second, the trial court did not have to credit defendant’s
testimony. (People v. Boyles (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 78, 82.)
Defendant testified that he was rushed, lacked sleep, and was
unable to reason through the consequences of giving up his rights
because he did not receive proper medical treatment for “the
previous months.”
There was other evidence that defendant had sufficient
time to consider the consequences of his plea and exercise his
judgment in choosing to plead no contest, and the court was
entitled to have credited that evidence. Defendant signed the
plea form on February 17, 2021, expressly indicating that he was
“not suffering from any medical condition” preventing him from
understanding the consequences of his plea. After signing the
form, defendant had an additional two days to consider the
consequences of his plea with the assistance of counsel. (People v.
Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 757 [extended period of time to
17
consider jury waiver relevant in assessing voluntariness].)
Defendant also reported that he was familiar with the offer
because the People had proposed it in October 2019 and his
attorney thoroughly explained the offer to him.
The following evidence from the plea colloquy further
supports the conclusion that defendant understood the plea and
was able to exercise his judgment. Defendant indicated that he
discussed with his attorney the charges, potential defenses, and
possible penalties were he to lose at trial. Defendant also
indicated that he understood the charges against him. Defendant
told the court that he understood his right to a trial, to confront
and cross-examine witness, call defense witnesses, present
defense evidence, issue subpoenas, as well as his right not to
incriminate himself. Defendant reported that he read the plea
form and understood everything in it. Defendant reported he
discussed it with his attorney and initialed and signed the form.
When the court asked if defendant had any additional questions
about the form, defendant responded, “No.” Defendant
volunteered that he had “some problems I need to deal with” and
was accepting the terms of the plea. Defendant reported he was
pleading no contest because he believed it was in his best interest
to do so.
On appeal, defendant emphasizes that at the time he
pleaded no contest to the stalking charge, “[h]e just wanted to get
things over with . . . .”5 The fact that it was in defendant’s
interest to accept a plea with a suspended sentence and “get
5 An administrator from Seon-Walker’s office observed the
court proceedings on February 19, 2021 and reported to Seon-
Walker that defendant expressed the desire “to get out [of jail]
that day.”
18
things over with” does not show that the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding defendant’s mental illness did not
overcome his exercise of free judgment.
Finally, defendant’s reliance on People v. McGarvy (1943)
61 Cal.App.2d 557 is misplaced. In McGarvy, the appellate court
reversed an order denying a defendant’s request to withdraw a
plea of guilty to manslaughter. McGarvy is distinguishable
because, in contrast to this case, the defendant in McGarvy,
among other things, did not have sufficient time within which to
discuss his case with his attorney and did not understand the
nature of the proceedings. (Id. at p. 559.) Here, the proceedings
were not hurried; defendant also had time to consider and
understand his plea and to consult with his attorney.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
19