P. v. Guzman
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Guzman CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HECTOR GUZMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B184075 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA023967) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Sam Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Antonio M. Zaldana and Antonio M. Zaldana for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Catherine Okawa Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________
Appellant Hector Guzman appeals from a March 3, 2005, order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Penal Code section 1018[1] on the ground that the judge who took his plea, Judge Smith, coerced him into pleading guilty.[2] On December 19, 1990, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2) and admitted that great bodily injury was inflicted on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7. Appellant was sentenced to three years for the assault and three consecutive years for the great bodily injury allegation.
Appellant appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion because appellant clearly demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Judge Smith overpowered his free judgment by repeated comments that strongly suggested a less-than-neutral attitude about the case and about appellant.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We begin the recitation of appellant's efforts to withdraw his 1990 plea with the factual portion of this court's unpublished opinion in case No. B163481. In that case, appellant appealed from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea based on the court's alleged failure to comply with section 1016.5[3] and his alternative petition for writ of error coram nobis.
â€
