People v. Montoya, F079501

Background

Defendant John Montoya, a licensed physical therapist, treated T.M., a dependent adult with advanced multiple sclerosis; in March 2016 he allegedly inserted a finger into her vagina during an unscheduled visit.
Montoya was charged with multiple sexual offenses and pleaded nolo contendere to Penal Code § 288(c)(2) (lewd act by a caretaker on a dependent adult); remaining counts were dismissed under the plea.
The court imposed a one‑year jail term with 364 days suspended (effectively probation), one day custody credit, and three years of felony probation; ordered $40 court operations and $30 court facilities assessments.
Montoya moved to withdraw his plea claiming ineffective assistance (counsel failed to advise on consent and caretaker defenses), coercion/duress in plea negotiations, and asserted the victim’s recantation; the trial court denied the motion.
While the appeal was pending the Legislature enacted AB 1950 (effective Jan. 1, 2021), capping most felony probation terms at two years; the parties filed supplemental briefs on retroactivity and remedy.
The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the plea‑withdrawal motion, accepted the Attorney General’s concession that AB 1950 applies retroactively, vacated the sentence and remanded to conform probation to AB 1950 while permitting the People or trial court to withdraw from the plea; the Dueñas fee claim was left to be addressed on remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Motion to withdraw plea — ineffective assistance (failure to advise re consent and caretaker defenses)	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; the asserted defenses were not substantially conclusive so no deprivation of counsel occurred	Counsel failed to inform defendant that consent and lack of caretaker status were viable defenses and thus rendered plea uninformed	Denied. Court found no deficient performance or substantially conclusive defenses; counsel’s decisions were within reasonable strategy.
2) Motion to withdraw plea — coercion/duress	Plea was voluntary; prosecutor did not coerce and had discretion to withdraw or set terms; defendant had time to consult counsel	Plea was induced by counsel’s scare tactics (threats of prison rape/violence) and by pressure from a purported imminent revocation of the offer	Denied. Trial court’s credibility findings supported: no coercion by state actors and no abuse of discretion in refusing withdrawal.
3) Effect of AB 1950 (shortening felony probation to two years)	Attorney General conceded AB 1950 applies retroactively but asked remand so People may accept the modification or withdraw from plea	Defendant sought retroactive application and remand to reduce probation to two years without reopening plea	Court accepted retroactivity. Sentence vacated and case remanded to impose probation consistent with AB 1950; People and trial court may withdraw approval of plea if they choose.
4) Dueñas challenge to $40 and $30 assessments (ability to pay)	Assessments were imposed; defendant did not object at sentencing	Under Dueñas, assessments require consideration of ability to pay and may be stayed/vacated if no ability-to-pay finding	Issue rendered moot by remand for resentencing; court allowed defendant to raise inability-to-pay arguments on remand.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (assessments and fines require ability‑to‑pay inquiry before imposition)
People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively; modification that affects a negotiated plea may permit People to withdraw approval)
People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (2020) (remand to apply statutory change to plea‑based sentence but People may rescind plea if bargain altered)
In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924 (1992) (ineffective assistance principles apply to plea bargaining decisions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)