NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT*
Nathan Allen Joseph Love challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw no contest pleas entered in this matter. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 29, 2018, Love was charged in the Fresno County Superior Court, in case No. F18902933, with receiving a stolen vehicle (count 1; Pen. Code,1 § 496d, subd. (a)); unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (count 2; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); misdemeanor receiving stolen property (count 3; § 496, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (count 4; § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged, as to counts 1 and 2, that Love had suffered a prior vehicle theft conviction within the meaning of section 666.5. In addition, the information alleged Love, having suffered three prior felony convictions, was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
In light of the charges in the above mentioned case, the district attorney filed petitions alleging Love had violated the terms of his felony probation in cases Nos. F17900453, F17900533, and F16902997.
On June 28, 2018, Love entered no contest pleas to all the counts and enhancements in the new case. Given Love's change of plea, he was found in violation of probation in each of his pending probation cases. Love's change of plea in the new case was based on the court's indicated sentence of a five-year lid for a global disposition encompassing the new case as well as the probation cases.
On August 23, 2018, Love filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas in the new case, which motion was denied. Thereafter, Love was sentenced, on all matters, to a total term of five years in prison.
The facts of the new case were summarized in the probation report. On April 30, 2018, a man named Dakota contacted the Fresno Police Department to report that several power tools and a vape pen had been stolen from his front porch. On May 1, 2018, another man, Garrett, contacted the Fresno County Sheriff's Department to report the theft of his truck, which was valued at $2,300. Garrett suspected Love, a former coworker. Garrett said Love admitted he had the truck but refused to return it.
Officers found Love in Garrett's truck, which had been spray painted a different color. After confirming the truck was Garrett's, officers attempted to detain Love. Love resisted these attempts by pulling his arms away, preventing the application of handcuffs, and yelling. Officers subsequently found Dakota's power tools in Love's possession.
DISCUSSION
I. Love's Motion to Withdraw Plea
As mentioned above, Love filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas in the new case, which motion was denied. Love argues the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
A. The Motion to Withdraw Plea and Supporting Papers
Love pleaded no contest to the charges in his new case on June 28, 2018. A change of plea form was signed and filed on the same date, in connection with Love's change of plea. The court also advised Love of his rights and confirmed Love's waivers as reflected on the change of plea form. In accepting Love's no contest pleas, the court determined they were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
The court then referred the matter to the probation department for preparation of a probation report for purposes of sentencing, which was initially set for July 27, 2018. However, at the July 27, 2018 hearing, Love requested the court to calendar a motion to withdraw plea. The court set a motion hearing for September 4, 2018.
Love filed his written motion to withdraw plea and supporting papers on August 23, 2018. In the motion papers, Love argued he should be allowed to withdraw his no contest pleas because, at the time (i.e., June 28, 2018), "he was severely depressed to the point his free will was overcome and he did not make a knowing, intelligent waiver." He further asserted: "Mr. Love was given Cymbalta from 6-13-18 to 7-12-18. Dosage was 20 MG. It appears the medication was given to him for pain, not depression as his chief complaint was pain from a jail fight ... [but] [t]he record shows he asked to stop taking the drug because it made him depressed." Love filed a declaration in support of his motion. His declaration states he was prescribed Cymbalta for back pain that he was experiencing in jail but the medication rendered him depressed and passive.
Love also submitted some generic literature regarding Cymbalta (also referred to by its generic name, duloxetine) with his motion papers. This literature was downloaded on August 22, 2018, from a website called Everyday Health.2 The literature notes Cymbalta is prescribed for depression as well as for "pain from diabetic nerve damage" and "long-term muscle or bone pain." It further notes: "Cymbalta may increase the risk for suicidal thoughts or behaviors if you are 24 years old or younger." (Italics added.) Love, however, was 27 years old at the time of his change of plea hearing. The literature also identifies the "most common side effects of Cymbalta" as well as its "possible side effects." Neither category includes depression. While a residual list of serious, but evidently rare, side effects includes "[w]orsening depression" as a potential side effect, this presumably applies when the drug is prescribed to treat depression in the first instance.
Love further submitted his jail medical records in support of his motion. The records indicate Love was prescribed Cymbalta on June 13, 2018, but, as early as July 3, 2018, he told jail medical staff he was no longer taking it because it made him depressed. Indeed, on July 14, 2018, Love told jail medical staff he had stopped taking Cymbalta after the first week as it made him depressed. On July 25, 2018, Love reiterated to jail medical staff that "he no longer want[ed] Cymbalta for pain to [his] back and right foot." These statements, taken together, suggest Love had stopped taking Cymbalta prior to his June 28, 2018 no contest pleas.
B. Hearing on Love's Motion to Withdraw Plea
Love's motion to withdraw plea was heard on September 7, 2018.3 Love testified at the hearing about the circumstances of his change of plea in his latest case. Love said that near the time of the change of plea hearing, he felt "[c]ompletely isolated, suicidal, [not] in [the] right state of mind." He iterated: "[W]hen I got on this medication [i.e., Cymbalta], it made me completely isolated to a way that I didn't venture out at times." He added: "It made it to where I was completely bed-bound at times.... I made several complaints to the medical staff that I was depressed and needed to see the doctor to get different medication going for my foot." He continued: "I just lost all hope and drive for everything. I just wanted to get it said and done with. I didn't care what was being said about me or anything at the time."4
The trial court commented he had read Love's moving papers and considered Love's testimony. The court further observed: "And I have also considered on behalf of the defense all the medical records that were supplied, irrespective of whether they were foundationally appropriate, but I have considered them. And I have also carefully gone over twice the actual change of plea transcript in this case, and I will indicate that it seemed to me that Mr. Love was very aware of what was going on. In fact, he asked certain pertinent questions about the case and about other issues related to the case and what would happen." In addition, the court noted that, under the plea deal, the latest case would add only "one-year to [Love's] already stayed prison term" in his pending probation cases. Indeed, the court's indicated sentence of a five-year lid for a global disposition encompassing the new case and the pending probation cases was lower than the maximum sentence applicable to these cases taken together.
Finally, the court pronounced its ruling:
"I will note that I actually remember this change of plea, unlike many others that I see, and that the change of plea indicated to me absolutely, with clarity, that [Love] understood what was going on and was engaged and asked questions.... And so his contention that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made or based on his free will has not been substantiated. I'll note that Cymbalta was prescribed for him, which is not for depression, theoretically, but for pain. He indicates he was not in his right state of mind. He had been prescribed Cymbalta on and off by the medical staff for back pain, which he was complaining of. He states he is now off medication and that he is now of sound mind. Again, I have reviewed the transcript and I remember the case, and I believe that he fully understood what he was doing on that date. The burden of proof on a motion to withdraw the plea is on the defendant. The defendant must show good cause to withdraw that plea by clear and convincing evidence. Ordinarily, it's left to the discretion of the court. He may not withdraw his plea simply because he has changed his mind or he may have been depressed when he made it, and there is absolutely no evidence, assuming the claim is even accurate, that depression affected his free judgment. Noting, again, the transcript of the plea, it was clear from that that he responded appropriately to questions by the court. There was no hesitation on his part in responding, nor were his responses inappropriate. He was, in fact, lucid enough to ask the court about whether doing the five years without a parole period would lessen the amount of custody time he might be required to serve. In short, there is zero evidence, either in the transcript or [the materials] submitted by the defendant, to establish his depression overcame his free judgment to decide to enter the pleas and the admission[s]. I would cite People v. Ravaux, a 2006 case, 142 Cal.App.4th at 914, 918. Again, I'm denying the motion claiming the medication in question actually caused depression. He has presented zero evidence as to how such a condition would have affected his judgment to the extent the court should permit him to withdraw his plea and the admissions." (Italics added.)
C. No Abuse of Discretion
A plea of guilty or no contest effects a waiver of several fundamental rights under both the state and federal Constitutions, and therefore must be entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242; People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 305.) Additionally, a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest upon establishing good cause. (§ 1018.) "Mistake, ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea." (People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679.)
A defendant seeking to withdraw his plea bears the burden of establishing good cause by clear and convincing evidence, and the denial of a motion to withdraw plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885; People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 917 (Ravaux).) The reviewing court must adopt the trial court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223; People v. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1416.)
Here, the trial court applied the correct legal standards in denying the motion to withdraw plea. The court reasoned that even assuming Love was depressed, and taking into consideration his testimony, there was no evidence, let alone credible evidence, to show the depression overcame Love's free judgment in pleading no contest to the charges. The record supports the court's finding. (See Ravaux, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 918 [in ruling on motion to withdraw plea, "[i]t is entirely within the court's discretion to consider its own observations of the defendant," and, furthermore, the court may "take into account the defendant's credibility and his interest in the outcome of the proceedings"].)
We conclude the court properly determined that Love had failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, good cause to withdraw his no contest pleas. In turn, the court's denial of Love's motion to withdraw these pleas was not an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
