People v. Barteau, Cr. 3717
| Decision Date | 12 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3717 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William BARTEAU and Janis Worthy Barteau, Defendants and Appellants. |
Defendants William Barteau and Janis Worthy Barteau appeal their probation orders deemed final judgments after they pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11530). They contend the court abused its discretion in denying their motions to withdraw their guilty pleas.
Defendants were initially charged by information with possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11530.5), possessing peyote (Health & Saf. Code § 11500) and possessing opium (Health & Saf. Code § 11500). William Barteau was charged with a prior conviction of possessing marijuana. Defendants moved to set aside the information and to suppress evidence. The court denied the motions to set aside the information when defendants failed to appear either in person or by counsel on April 6, 1968, the hearing date. The record does not disclose the disposition of the motions to suppress evidence which had also been noticed for April 5, 1968.
On April 17, 1968 both defendants withdrew their not guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty to the included offense of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11530). The charges of possessing peyote and opium were dismissed. The court struck William Barteau's prior conviction.
Defendants contend their changes of plea resulted from a bargain struck with the district attorney's office. Their attorney executed and filed a declaration in support of a motion defendants be allowed to change their pleas back to not guilty. According to this declaration the substance of the plea bargain was William Barteau, who belonged to the Marine Corps Reserve, would ask to be put on active duty. The district attorney would recommend he be granted probation on condition he enter active duty with the Marine Corps. William Barteau did apply for active duty. The district attorney did recommend probation.
The court minutes show the court set May 8, 1968 for defendants' probation hearings following their changes of pleas. On May 8, 1968 the probation hearings were continued to June 12, 1968 with a notation the hearing was to be moved up if military orders were received. On June 10, 1968, defendants' attorney declared he first learned William Barteau might not be activated. On June 12, 1968 at the continued probation hearing the deputy district attorney told defense counsel William Barteau would not be activated. The court again continued the probation hearing, to June 14, 1968, to allow defendants to file their motions to withdraw their guilty pleas.
On June 14, 1968 the court denied both defendants' motions to withdraw their guilty pleas. The court granted probation to William Barteau for a period of three years, one condition being he spend six months in custody. The court also granted probation to Janis Barteau for three years, one condition being she spend thirty days in custody.
Defendants challenge the trial court's exercise of discretion in denying their motions to withdraw their guilty pleas by claiming the State did not live up to its half of a plea bargain. This challenge may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment taken without complying with Penal Code section 1237.5 (People v. Delles, 69 Cal.2d 906, 909--910, 73 Cal.Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629). Defendants' burden on this appeal is to establish by clear and convincing evidence they entered their guilty pleas through mistake, ignorance, inadvertence or any factor overcoming their exercise of a free...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curl v. Superior Court (People)
...Cal.App.3d 337, 344, 239 Cal.Rptr. 413; People v. Hunt (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 95, 102-103, 219 Cal.Rptr. 731; People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 483, 486, 89 Cal.Rptr. 139.) "Grant or denial of a motion lies within the trial court's sound discretion after consideration of all factors nec......
-
People v. Nance, No. E007995
... ... (People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 483, 486, 89 Cal.Rptr. 139; People v. Cruz, supra, 12 Cal.3d 562 at p. 566, 116 Cal.Rptr. 242, 526 P.2d 250.) ... ...
-
People v. Dena
... ... 313, 426 P.2d 881; People v. Tracy (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 94, 102, fn. 2, 90 Cal.Rptr. 375; People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 483, 486, 89 ... Page 359 ... Cal.Rptr. 139.) On the other hand the rule is well established [25 Cal.App.3d 1005] that ... ...
-
People v. Harris, B161291.
...ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea. (People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 483, 486, People v. Brotherton (1966) 239 Cal. App. 2d 195, 200-201, , and cases cited therein.) But good cause must be shown by cl......