P. v. Pugh
Filed 3/21/06 P. v. Pugh CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDERICK PUGH, Defendant and Appellant. | E037585 (Super.Ct.No. FSB037583) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas A. Fettel, Judge. Affirmed.
Beatrice C. Tillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Frederick Pugh was charged with committing a forcible lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1), count 1)[1] and child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 2 and one count of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) (a charge that was added by oral amendment). In exchange, the court dismissed count 1 and granted defendant probation for a five-year period and an immediate release before sentencing, conditioned upon a Cruz waiver.[2] Defendant then brought a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The court found that defendant violated his Cruz waiver and sentenced him to two years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his plea because he was incompetent at the time he entered the plea and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to make a finding that there was an adequate factual basis to support his guilty plea. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[3]
On January 4, 2003, the police responded to a call that defendant had slapped his 11-year-old nephew (the victim). Defendant was under the influence of alcohol when the police arrived at the residence. The victim told police that defendant asked him to lock his dog in the backyard. When he refused, defendant became angry, grabbed the victim's pants, and â€
