People v. Gudino CA5, F080729

In October 2018 defendant Jesus Gudino sexually molested his four‑year‑old granddaughter and later admitted orally copulating her during a videotaped police interview.
Charged with oral copulation of a child under 10 (§ 288.7(b)) and a lewd act on a child (§ 288(a)); defendant pled no contest to a lesser related offense of oral copulation on a person under 14 by force (§ 287(c)(2)(B)) pursuant to a negotiated disposition calling for the upper term of 12 years and dismissal of the other count.
Defendant later moved to withdraw his plea, claiming advanced age/possible incapacity, fear/coercion during the police interview, language/cultural barriers, and that counsel failed to move to suppress his pre‑plea statement.
At an evidentiary hearing the videotaped interview was played; Detective Navarro testified defendant voluntarily went to the station, was told he was free to leave, spoke in Spanish, and confessed; Navarro did not give Miranda warnings because defendant was not in custody.
The trial court found defendant not in custody during the interview, counsel’s representation was not deficient for declining to move to suppress, denied the plea‑withdrawal motion, imposed the agreed 12‑year term, and issued a stay‑away order.
Appellate counsel filed a People v. Wende brief raising no arguable issues; this court performed an independent review and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of plea / motion to withdraw	Plea was knowing, voluntary, with interpreter and advisals; factual basis stipulated	Plea was involuntary due to age, lack of capacity, fear, cultural/language barriers, and misunderstanding re CPS	Motion denied; plea voluntary and counseled; affirmed
Ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress	Counsel reasonably declined because interview was noncustodial and suppression unlikely	Counsel ineffective for failing to suppress pre‑plea confession	Court found no deficiency; counsel acted reasonably; affirmed
Whether interview was custodial (Miranda)	Interview noncustodial: defendant came voluntarily, told free to leave, no restraints, short interview	Interview coercive: station interview, fear of police, not Mirandized	Court held interview noncustodial and Miranda warnings not required; confession admissible
Sentence under negotiated plea	Sentence reflected negotiated upper term (12 years) and was lawfully imposed	Defendant sought plea withdrawal (which would affect sentence) but raised no separate sentencing error	Court imposed agreed 12‑year term and affirmed judgment

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (requires independent appellate review where counsel raises no arguable issues)
People v. Moore, 51 Cal.4th 386 (2011) (framework for assessing whether station‑house interrogation was custodial)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody inquiry for Miranda focuses on objective circumstances)
Green v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 126 (1985) (station‑house, voluntary interviews may be noncustodial)
People v. Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th 1151 (1996) (lists factors for custodial interrogation analysis)
People v. Spears, 228 Cal.App.3d 1 (1991) (station‑house noncustodial interview where officer conduct was courteous and not coercive)