Filed 10/3/17 P. v. Peters CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Eugene Matthew Peterson, Jr. pled no contest to several felonies, including attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)).[1] The trial court denied Peterson’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to 24 years in state prison.

Peterson appeals. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Peterson did not file a supplemental brief. Our review of the record discloses no arguable issues. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2015, Peterson broke into the victims’ home and threatened to kill them. He shot at one victim and assaulted the other victim with a gun. The prosecution charged Peterson with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), two counts of criminal threats (§ 422), first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The prosecution alleged various sentencing enhancements, including that Peterson personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). In May 2015, Peterson was found incompetent but his competency was later restored and criminal proceedings were reinstated.

In July 2016, as the jury was being selected, Peterson pled no contest to the charges in exchange for a maximum of 25 years in prison. Several months later—and represented by a new attorney—Peterson moved to withdraw his plea, claiming trial counsel “coerced” him into taking a plea, and that trial counsel had an undeclared “conflict of interest” rendering her “unable to provide representation that was not substantially diluted.” According to the motion, trial counsel had a “personal relationship with the victims that affected her ability to remain impartial” and which caused her to “coerce [Peterson] into taking the plea bargain.”

At an evidentiary hearing, Peterson testified trial counsel had a “personal relationship” with the victims because she “went to a wedding at [their] residence.” Peterson thought this relationship made trial counsel “biased . . . in representing [him].” Peterson also complained trial counsel did not explain the plea agreement to him, and that he “didn’t . . . have really a chance to read and understand” the agreement before he signed it. Peterson felt “coerced in taking the deal because . . . [trial counsel] was going to have a problem cross-examining the witnesses because she knows them personally.” Peterson, however, conceded he had pled guilty or no contest to criminal charges on several previous occasions; he also acknowledged trial counsel discussed the plea bargain with him multiple times.

Trial counsel—the head of the Mendocino Public Defender’s office—testified she did not have a personal relationship with the victims and did not attend a wedding at their house. Trial counsel told Peterson she met the victims’ sister at a wedding. Trial counsel described the plea negotiations and her discussion with Peterson regarding the plea. She also explained why she recommended the plea.

The court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. It concluded trial counsel had explained the plea agreement and that Peterson’s plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also determined trial counsel did not have a conflict of interest. The court sentenced Peterson to 24 years in state prison. It imposed various fines and fees and awarded Peterson 745 days of credit.

Peterson appealed and requested a certificate of probable cause, alleging he: (1) received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that he accepted the plea bargain because of such ineffectiveness; and (2) was denied due process when the court denied his motion to withdraw the plea. The trial court issued the probable cause certificate.

DISCUSSION

Peterson’s appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and informed Peterson of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Peterson did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442–443.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterson’s motion to withdraw his plea. (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 442–443.) Peterson’s due process rights were not violated.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Jones, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Needham, J.

_________________________

Bruiniers, J.