People v. Goodwillie

Decision Date09 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. D046757.,D046757.
Citation147 Cal.App.4th 695,54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Markus D. GOODWILLIE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Gary V. Crooks, San Diego, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

AARON, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Markus Goodwillie appeals from his conviction for burglary, unlawfully taking an automobile, assault with a deadly weapon, petty theft, evading an officer with reckless driving, and resisting an officer.

At his arraignment, Goodwillie waived his right to be represented by counsel, choosing instead to represent himself. At that time, the judge who conducted the arraignment appointed advisory counsel to assist Goodwillie in preparing his case. On the day originally set for trial, the judge who was assigned to try the case relieved the attorney who was serving as advisory counsel to Goodwillie, sua sponte, commenting that he did not believe Goodwillie had a right to the assistance of advisory counsel.1 After the trial judge relieved Goodwillie's advisory counsel, the judge asked Goodwillie whether he wished to continue representing himself in light of the fact that he would no longer have the assistance of advisory counsel. Goodwillie reaffirmed his decision to represent himself. At trial, the jury convicted Goodwillie on all counts.

On appeal, Goodwillie argues that (1) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel when the judge relieved Goodwillie's advisory counsel; (2) the court violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights by failing to ascertain whether Goodwillie "actually understood" the significance and consequences of his decision to represent himself; (3) the court violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights by granting the prosecution's motion to exclude the testimony of an eyewitness identification expert; and (4) his due process and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when both the court and the prosecutor misinformed him of the amount of credit he could receive for good behavior under a plea offer the prosecutor had extended to him.

While the trial court erred in reconsidering and effectively reversing the order of another judge appointing advisory counsel for Goodwillie, we conclude that the trial court's decision to relieve advisory counsel did not violate Goodwillie's Sixth Amendment rights. Because Goodwillie has not established that he was prejudiced by the court's decision to relieve his advisory counsel, reversal on this ground is not required.

With respect to the second and third issues Goodwillie raises, the trial court did ascertain that Goodwillie understood the significance and consequences of choosing to represent himself, and thus did not violate Goodwillie's constitutional rights in this regard. We also conclude that the trial court did not violate Gooowillie's due process or Sixth Amendment rights when the court disallowed testimony by an eyewitness identification expert.

Goodwillie's convictions must be reversed, however, because both the court and the prosecutor misinformed Goodwillie regarding his eligibility for good behavior credits under a plea bargain offered by the prosecution, thereby violating Goodwillie's right to due process. The record discloses that Goodwillie would have accepted the plea bargain if he had known that he would in fact be eligible to receive 50 percent credit, rather than 15 percent credit, as he was informed by both the judge and the prosecutor. We therefore vacate the judgment, and remand the matter to the trial court.

On remand, the district attorney may elect, within 30 days, to retry the defendant and if the district attorney so chooses, resume the plea negotiation process, or the district attorney may submit the previously offered plea bargain to the trial court for its approval. If the district attorney chooses to submit the plea bargain to the court and the court approves it, the judgment shall be modified consistent with the terms of the plea bargain.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual background
1. The prosecution's case

On August 9, 2004, John Ralph looked out his bedroom window at his truck, which he had parked outside of his apartment building in a visitor's stall. Ralph saw a man he later identified as Goodwillie standing near the truck. Ralph saw Goodwillie put something down his pants, then pull his shirt down over the object. Ralph ran downstairs and encountered a neighbor who told him that Goodwillie had been inside the truck. Ralph checked inside the truck and noticed that his handicapped parking placard was missing. A few weeks later, Ralph saw Goodwillie come out of an apartment across the street from Ralph's apartment complex and get into a silver Chrysler 300M. Ralph had the impression that the car was a rental car,

On the morning of August 9, Margaret King, one of Ralph's neighbors, was outside smoking a cigarette when she saw a man sitting in the driver's seat 6f a white Ford Expedition. She watched the man get out of the vehicle and walk across the street. She then saw Ralph run out of his apartment. Ralph asked King whether she had seen a man in his vehicle. King picked Goodwillie's photo from a photo lineup and identified him as the man who had been sitting in Ralph's Expedition. King later observed Goodwillie driving a silver car, and saw him go into one of the apartments across Presioca Street.

On August 18, 2004, Goodwillie burglarized the apartment of Jaime Ocadiz.2 Goodwillie entered the apartment through a bedroom window after Ocadiz left for work. Goodwillie took a DVD player, speakers, a VCR, and approximately $25 to $30 from the apartment.

The manager of Ocadiz's apartment complex, who lived in the apartment below Ocadiz, set up a surveillance video system in his personal backyard on August 18 because items were missing from his apartment, and there had been break-ins at other apartments in the complex. The manager turned on the surveillance system before he left for work that morning. When he returned home at approximately 5:00 p.m., he reviewed the video. The manager saw Goodwillie on the video. The manager knew that Goodwillie was "unofficially" staying in apartment A-4 in the complex.3 He knew that Goodwillie's first name was Markus, and he had seen Goodwillie driving a silver car.

San Diego County Sheriffs Detective Oscar Escobedo investigated the theft of Ralph's handicapped parking placard. When Detective Escobedo presented a photo lineup to Ralph and King, both picked out Goodwillie's photograph. Ralph told detectives that he had seen Goodwillie driving a silver car. Detective Escobedo located the car. After running the license plate number of the silver car through the police database, Detective Escobedo determined that the vehicle had not been reported stolen. Detective Escobedo contacted Thrifty Rent A Car and discovered that the silver Chrysler was one of their cars and that it had been missing since July 27, 2004. Escobedo instructed the rental car agency representative to report the car stolen.

On August 18, 2004, San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Robert Day responded to a burglary call at Ocadiz's apartment complex. Deputy Day contacted the apartment complex manager, who gave Day the videotape from his security camera. Deputy Day lifted fingerprints from a window in Ocadiz's daughter's room and from a sliding glass door. A fingerprint examiner concluded that a latent print lifted from the bedroom window at the Ocadiz apartment matched Goodwillie's right middle fingerprint.

On August 19, deputies conducted a search for a silver Chrysler near Presioca Street, the street on which Ralph and Ocadiz's apartment buildings were located. After they located the vehicle parked on a nearby street, deputies watched as Goodwillie got into the Chrysler and drove toward the end of that street. The deputies followed Goodwillie down the street in three patrol cars with their lights and sirens activated. Goodwillie turned onto Presioca Street and then onto another nearby street. Two patrol cars blocked the intersection, preventing a Lincoln that was being driven by Deandre Pamplin, from moving through the intersection. Goodwillie started to get out of the Chrysler, but then got back in and accelerated toward the Lincoln and the police blockade. Goodwillie crashed the Chrysler into the Lincoln, pushing it through the blockade of patrol cars. Pamplin suffered injuries to his back and neck. The crash caused $6,000 in damages to Pamplin's car.

After he collided with the Lincoln, Goodwillie drove the Chrysler through the police blockade, and continued driving to Birch Street. Goodwillie crashed into a trailer at the dead end of Birch Street and fled on foot. A sheriffs deputy chased Goodwillie as he climbed over several fences and ran into a mobile home park, but Goodwillie evaded apprehension. One deputy thought that Goodwillie might be heading to the apartment where the deputies had surveilled him earlier. The deputy contacted the police dispatcher and requested that the dispatcher send deputies back to the apartment.

When deputies inspected the abandoned Chrysler, they found John Ralph's stolen handicapped parting placard in the glove compartment.

Sheriffs deputies returned to the apartment where Goodwillie had been staying and knocked on the door. They received no response. The deputies obtained a key to the apartment from the apartment manager and entered the apartment. Inside they found Goodwillie, wearing only a towel. He had scratches on his arms and legs. Deputies noticed clothing covered with oil inside the apartment. The sheriffs deputy who had chased Goodwillie had oil on his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • People v. Kocontes
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2022
    ...Additionally, while we acknowledged one superior court judge may not overrule another superior court judge ( People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 713, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 ), "Judge Prickett did not overrule Judge Evans because they presided over different causes." (Kocontes, supr......
  • People v. Dunn
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2012
    ...Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253 [exclusion of irrelevant evidence “did not implicate any due process concerns”]; People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 725, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 [no due process violation in exclusion of defense expert testimony that did not have “significant probative va......
  • People v. Dunn
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 2012
    ...Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253 [exclusion of irrelevant evidence “did not implicate any due process concerns”]; People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 725, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 [no due process violation in exclusion of defense expert testimony that did not have “significant probative va......
  • People v. Debouver
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 2016
    ...reasonably probable that he would have obtained more favorable result had advisory counsel been appointed. (People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 716, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601 [applying People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 299 P.2d 243 harmless error analysis].)Miranda Statement Appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...Lucas, 60 Cal.4th at 277; People v. Chavez (4th Dist.2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 663, 680; see, e.g., People v. Goodwillie (4th Dist.2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 725-26 (expert testimony was properly excluded when eyewitness identification was corroborated by four witnesses and other evidence). Beca......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...4-C, §8.4.5 People v. Goodner, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1324, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543 (6th Dist. 1992)—Ch. 3-B, §5.4.5(1) People v. Goodwillie, 147 Cal. App. 4th 695, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 601 (4th Dist. 2007)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(h) People v. Gotfried, 107 Cal. App. 4th 254, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 840 (6th Dist. 20......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT