People v. Mendoza CA5
88 Cal.App.5th 287
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2023Background
- Defendant Rodrigo Joel Mendoza was charged with murder, vehicular manslaughter, and hit-and-run; special allegations included personally inflicting great bodily injury, fleeing the scene, and a prior serious felony/strike.
- Mendoza pleaded nolo contendere to vehicular manslaughter (Veh. Code § 191.5) and admitted the great-bodily-injury and hit-and-run enhancements and a prior serious felony; counts and some enhancements were dismissed per the plea agreement.
- The trial court advised Mendoza the plea would count as a Three Strikes conviction and could affect immigration; Mendoza waived constitutional rights and stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as the factual basis.
- Factual basis: late-night collision after a black Mercedes left a bar; victim ejected and died; beer bottle with Mendoza’s DNA found in the Mercedes; witness observed someone leave the scene; defendant later smelled of alcohol and called for a ride.
- Mendoza was sentenced to an aggregate 17 years (doubled middle term plus five years for fleeing the scene) and appealed, asserting his speedy-trial rights were violated and that he was misled about the appealability of that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mendoza’s nolo contendere plea was induced by a promise (express or implied) that he could appeal a speedy-trial denial, thus permitting plea withdrawal | The People: no such promise was made; speedy-trial claims are not cognizable on appeal after a guilty plea, so there was no improper inducement | Mendoza: plea was induced by the trial court’s (implied) assurance he could appeal a speedy-trial violation, so the plea should be withdrawable | The court affirmed. No express or implied promise appears in the record; speedy-trial claims are generally waived by a guilty plea, and Mendoza’s plea was not induced by an unenforceable promise. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. De Vaughn, 18 Cal.3d 889 (Cal. 1977) (guilty-plea challenges limited to constitutional/jurisdictional/other legality grounds; pleas induced by fundamental misrepresentations require reversal)
- People v. Hollins, 15 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (trial-court promise to preserve appellate review of a noncognizable issue is an improper inducement to plead)
- People v. Hernandez, 6 Cal.App.4th 1355 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (speedy-trial claims are waived by guilty plea; court acquiescence to an appeal does not imply the plea was conditioned on appellate preservation)
- People v. Hoffard, 10 Cal.4th 1170 (Cal. 1995) (certificate of probable cause permits consideration of cognizable issues beyond those listed in the defendant’s request)