People v. Monroe CA2/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/14/24 P. v. Monroe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337249
(Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. VA156969)
v.
DANNY JESSE MONROE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Danny Jesse
Monroe pleaded no contest to one count of voluntary
manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)) and three other
felony charges. He later moved to withdraw the plea. The trial
court denied the motion, and Monroe now appeals. Monroe’s
attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 raising no issues. Monroe filed a supplemental brief
requesting once again to withdraw his plea so that he might take
his case to trial with a new attorney. We affirm because Monroe
has failed to show good cause for withdrawing his plea. In
addition, we have reviewed the entire record and found no
arguable issues.
I
At a preliminary hearing, a police detective testified that
he investigated a report of a robbery at a gas station in Whittier
on July 14, 2021. The victim told him that a man he later
identified as Monroe simulated holding a gun inside his shirt and
took the victim’s necklace.
A second detective, Kenneth Woods, testified that on
October 12, 2021, officers tracked Monroe to a motel room in
Rosemead. The officers suspected Monroe of killing Diego
Jimenez on October 1, 2021, outside an apartment complex in
Whittier. Monroe refused to exit the motel room and barricaded
himself inside for hours. The officers introduced chemical agents
into the room, causing Monroe to flee on foot. A sheriff’s deputy
on the canine detail released his police dog to intercept Monroe,
1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
and Monroe grabbed the dog by the neck, choking it for nearly a
minute.
Woods testified that he spoke with two women who were in
the motel room with Monroe when the standoff began. One of the
women told Woods that she was with Monroe on October 1, and
that she saw him shoot Jimenez. Police also recovered
surveillance footage showing Monroe getting into a car with an
acquaintance, Brian Black, minutes before the shooting at the
motel where he was staying. Additional footage showed the car
traveling toward the location of the shooting at around the same
time officers reported hearing a gunshot, and then traveling back
to the motel minutes later. In jail, Black told an undercover
police officer that he expected Monroe to fight with Jimenez, and
did not know Monroe was going to shoot him.
Monroe reached a plea agreement under which he pleaded
no contest to one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd.
(a)) in lieu of the original charge of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)).
Monroe also pleaded no contest to one count each of possession of
a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), cruelty to an animal
(§ 597, subd. (a)), and robbery (§ 211), and admitted that he used
a firearm in the commission of the manslaughter (§ 12022.5,
subd. (a)) and that several aggravating factors applied. Monroe
stipulated to an aggregate sentence of 23 years four months in
prison. Prior to accepting the plea, the prosecutor informed
Monroe of his trial rights, and asked him if he understood those
rights and the consequences of his plea. Monroe stated that he
did, and that he wished to waive his rights. Monroe also signed a
plea form confirming he understood his rights and wished to
waive them and plead no contest. The trial court found that
Monroe’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, free, and voluntary.
3
At a hearing in February 2024, approximately four months
after he entered his plea, Monroe informed the court that he
wished to withdraw his plea and to be represented by a different
attorney. The trial court denied the Marsden2 motion, at which
point Monroe refused to sit down, attempted to leave the
courtroom, and fought with the bailiff.
The following day, Monroe reiterated his request to
withdraw his plea. Monroe’s attorney, however, stated that she
could not state legal grounds for withdrawing the plea. She told
the court that she “fully advised . . . Monroe of his rights as well
as the strengths and weaknesses of the case,” and that she
believed it “was in his best interest . . . to resolve the case.” She
also stated that as a result of the plea agreement, Monroe was
able to avoid a life sentence, and ultimately obtained an
aggregate sentence lower than his initial counteroffer to the
People’s proposed sentence. The trial court asked Monroe if he
wished to file a new Marsden motion, but Monroe did not
respond.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 23 years
four months, as indicated in the plea agreement.
II
When an attorney files a brief raising no issues, we are
required to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 439),
and we must “conduct a review of the entire record” (id. at
p. 441). Monroe’s appellate attorney stated that he had provided
Monroe with a copy of the record and the brief and informed him
2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
4
that he had the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.
We sent Monroe a letter with the same information.
In response, Monroe filed a brief reading as follows: “The
reason I would like to be tr[i]ed again is I wasn’t 100[ percent]
aware of my situation. I didn’t . . . understand my case. I was in
the ‘blind’ the whole time . . . regarding my case. I think I
deserve to be given a fair chance at trial and given a new
attorney to represent me.”
A defendant may request to withdraw a guilty plea at any
time prior to judgment, and the trial court may “for a good cause
shown, permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of
not guilty substituted.” (§ 1018.) “ ‘To establish good cause to
withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant must show by clear and
convincing evidence that he or she was operating under mistake,
ignorance, or any other factor overcoming the exercise of his or
her free judgment, including inadvertence, fraud, or duress.’
[Citations.] The defendant may not withdraw a plea because the
defendant has changed his or her mind. [Citations.]” (People v.
Archer (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 693, 702.) “ ‘A decision to deny a
motion to withdraw a guilty plea “ ‘rests in the sound discretion
of the trial court’ ” and is final unless the defendant can show a
clear abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] Moreover, a reviewing
court must adopt the trial court’s factual findings if substantial
evidence supports them. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
Monroe has failed to show the trial court abused its
discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Monroe’s
bare assertion that he did not understand his case and was
“ ‘blind’ the whole time” is insufficient to overcome the
overwhelming evidence from the record that both the prosecutor
and his attorney informed him of his rights, along with the trial
5
court’s finding that he made a knowing and intelligent decision to
waive those rights and accept the plea bargain.
We have examined the entire record and we have “found no
arguable issue.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) We
are further satisfied Monroe’s attorney has complied with the
responsibilities of counsel. (Id. at pp. 125-126; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
WEINGART, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
BENDIX, J.
6