P. v. Soto
Filed 7/25/06 P. v. Soto CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOTERO SOTO, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048452
(Super. Ct. No. VCF132334B)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gerald F. Sevier, Judge.
Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
--oo0oo--
Defendant was charged by first amended information alleging three felony counts and one misdemeanor count. Count 1 alleged first degree burglary. Count 2 alleged assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Count 3 alleged dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. Count 4 alleged misdemeanor vandalism. All three felony counts alleged that the crime was committed for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang. Count 2 alleged that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. The case proceeded to jury trial. After the jury was selected but before evidence was received, defendant entered a change of plea. He pled no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the gang allegation. The people dismissed counts 3 and 4. The court indicated it would strike the great bodily injury enhancement associated with count 2 for sentencing purposes and that appellant would receive a state prison sentence of no more than 17 years 8 months.
The court took the change of plea. A sentencing date was scheduled. At the time of the sentencing hearing, defendant appeared with new counsel and requested that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. The declaration defendant submitted with the motion to withdraw stated that he had never had a complete understanding of the charges, did not know the maximum range of sentence he could receive if found guilty, his former attorney never asked him for his side of the story or about any witnesses or defenses, his attorney told him he should plead no contest to two of the charges and that it would be better if he took â€
