People v. Winters CA1/4 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/30/23 P. v. Winters CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A165701
v.
San Francisco City &
County Superior Court
PAUL WINTERS,
No. 21009020)
Defendant and
Appellant.
Pursuant to an agreement resolving both this criminal case
and a petition to revoke his parole, defendant Paul Winters
entered a guilty plea to one felony count of domestic violence
(Pen. Code, § 273.5, subds. (a), (b)) and admitted one allegation of
the parole petition relating to his access to a firearm. On the
domestic violence conviction, imposition of sentence was
suspended and defendant was placed on probation with a
condition that he serve 180 days in custody concurrently with the
180 days he was ordered to serve on his parole violation.
Approximately five months after being sentenced,
defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to the domestic
violence charge. After two hearings on the motion , and after
1
permitting defendant’s counsel to file supplemental papers
relating to the effects of the medication defendant was taking, the
trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding that defendant had
failed to establish the requisite good cause to withdraw his plea
by the applicable standard of clear and convincing evidence.
Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief asking that
we conduct an independent review of the record for arguable
issues—i.e., those that are not frivolous, as required by People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel also informed
defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own
behalf, but defendant did not do so.
Finding no arguable issues, we shall affirm.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a “global disposition” resolving both this
criminal case and a petition to revoke his parole from an earlier
conviction, defendant entered a guilty plea to one felony count of
domestic violence and admitted one firearm-related allegation of
the pending parole petition. During the hearing at which
defendant entered his guilty plea and admitted violating the
firearm-related condition of his parole, the court asked
defendant, “Before coming to court today, did you consume
anything that could impact your ability to think clearly?”
Defendant answered, “No, your Honor.” The court then asked,
“So your mind is clear and you know what you’re doing?” and
defendant confirmed, “Yes, your Honor.” Before entering his
guilty plea, defendant was advised that the exposure on the
felony domestic violence charge was two, three, or four years of
2
incarceration.
Defendant was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the
global disposition.
Several months later, represented by new counsel,
defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming
that he had established good cause to do so because (1) the
medication he was taking in custody affected his ability to think
clearly; (2) he was under the mistaken impression that he had to
plead guilty to resolve the parole petition; and (3) his prior
counsel had told him he could be facing a life sentence under the
Three Strikes Law.
In denying the motion, the trial court explained that it had
been involved in the proceedings relating to the parole revocation
petition, the change of plea, and the sentencing. It further
noted—consistent with the recollection of the prosecutor and the
transcripts—that defendant had been engaged and responsive
throughout the proceedings, and had shown no confusion,
misunderstanding, or hesitation when he entered his plea and
admission to resolve both the felony case and the parole
revocation petition on favorable terms. The court remarked that
defendant had been “very clear” and had given “crisp responses”
during the colloquy for his guilty plea and parole violation
admission, and had been similarly “clear-minded” during the
subsequent sentencing on the felony domestic violence conviction.
In addition, the court noted that during the plea colloquy,
defendant had been told that the exposure on his felony case was
two, three, or four years—with “no mention of a third strike”—
3
and that the ultimate global disposition was for “substantially
less than his exposure as set forth in the [plea] admonition.”
Finally, the court noted that even though it had given counsel
time to file a supplemental pleading providing additional
information as to the effects of the medication on defendant,
counsel’s declaration, summary of medical records, and printout
of the medication’s side effects from drugs.com failed to establish
the medication’s actual (as opposed to potential) effects on
defendant.
Pursuant to Wende, we have conducted an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
issues that merit discussion. We find none. The defendant was
properly advised when he entered his guilty plea, the sentence
was legally valid, and the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. (People v.
Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1506 [denial of motion to
withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion]; People v. Breslin
(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415–1416 [defendant seeking to
withdraw plea must establish asserted basis for withdrawal plea
by clear and convincing evidence].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
4
STREETER, J.
GOLDMAN, J. People v. Winters (A165701)
5