People v. Archer CA2/7
230 Cal. App. 4th 693
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Vaughn Archer committed multiple violent offenses October 27, 2011: assaults, robberies, and carjackings against two victims (Ahmad and Murga) and an assault on a third (Skaden); property and items were recovered at a hotel where Archer stayed.
- Prosecutor charged nine counts including robbery, carjacking, multiple assaults with a deadly weapon, battery causing serious bodily injury, and kidnapping to commit robbery; multiple sentencing enhancements were alleged and four prior prison-term allegations were admitted.
- Archer accepted a negotiated no-contest plea and admitted enhancements; the court advised the statutory maximum if convicted on all counts would be 34 years, 4 months to life; the agreed sentence was 27 years, 4 months; counts 8 and 9 were dismissed.
- After plea but before sentencing Archer moved to withdraw under Penal Code §1018, arguing the court overstated his maximum exposure because Penal Code §654 (prohibiting multiple punishment for the same objective) would likely have limited consecutive sentences to 23 years to life; he claimed duress, mistake, ineffective assistance, and that he pled only because he feared life in prison.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding no fraud, duress, or counsel prejudice and concluding the court had correctly advised Archer of the statutory maximum; the court explained §654’s application depends on factual findings at sentencing or trial and is speculative at plea time.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal: the advisory statutory maximum was correct and the speculative, factual application of §654 did not furnish good cause or show prejudice to warrant withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by advising Archer his maximum exposure was 34 years, 4 months to life without applying §654 | The People: court correctly advised statutory maximum exposure; advisory must reflect statutory range, not speculative reductions | Archer: court should have accounted for §654; true maximum exposure was 23 years to life and plea was induced by misstatement/duress | Held: No error — court need not predict §654 application; advisory of statutory maximum was proper |
| Whether failure to discuss §654 and its possible effect constitutes good cause under §1018 to withdraw plea | The People: defendant failed to show mistake, fraud, or prejudice required for §1018 relief | Archer: ignorance of §654’s impact overcame his free judgment and induced plea | Held: No good cause — §654’s application is factual and speculative pretrial; defendant did not meet clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether misadvice (or omission) about sentence prejudiced Archer so withdrawal is required | The People: no specific showing that correct advice would have caused rejection of plea | Archer: would not have accepted plea if knew true maximum | Held: No prejudice shown — defendant did not declare he would have insisted on trial and did not move promptly enough |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising about §654 | The People: counsel not ineffective because court’s advisory was correct and there is no showing counsel’s advice changed outcome | Archer: counsel’s silence on §654 was deficient and prejudiced decision to plead | Held: No ineffective assistance — no incompetent performance shown nor reasonable probability of different outcome at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Moser, 6 Cal.4th 342 (misadvice about maximum can support withdrawal only if prejudicial)
- People v. Fairbank, 16 Cal.4th 1223 (motion to withdraw plea rests in trial court discretion)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (standard for withdrawal under §1018; good cause requirement)
- People v. Goodwillie, 147 Cal.App.4th 695 (court/prosecutor duty not to misinform when misinformation inexorably alters plea incentives)
- People v. Barella, 20 Cal.4th 261 (advisal requirement limited to direct consequences; speculative future benefits do not require detailed advisals)
- People v. Ross, 201 Cal.App.3d 1232 (application of §654 turns on factual findings typically made at sentencing or after trial)