 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Marlin11/30/2004
stipulate to a particular document such as the transcript of a preliminary hearing as providing a factual basis for a plea. (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 435-436, 442, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 84 P.3d 366.) The trial court need not obtain an element by element factual basis but need only obtain a prima facie factual basis for the plea. (Id. at p. 442, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 84 P.3d 366; People v. Calderon (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, 283 Cal.Rptr. 833.) "[A] trial court possesses wide discretion in determining whether a sufficient factual basis exists for a guilty plea. The trial court's acceptance of the guilty plea, after pursuing an inquiry to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea, will be reversed only for abuse of discretion." (Holmes, supra, at p. 443, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, 84 P.3d 366.)
With respect to the factual basis for this plea, defense counsel stated the parties had agreed to adopt the facts as set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript. The court stated it would read the transcript prior to sentencing "to validate the factual basis for the more serious charges."
The factual basis set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript is sufficient. The transcript shows that defendant had been convicted on numerous occasions over the years for driving under the influence of alcohol. Armed with the knowledge of the dangerousness of his conduct, defendant chose once again to drink and drive. "When a defendant commits an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to human life, with a conscious disregard for life in general, he acts with implied malice towards those he ends up killing. There is no requirement the defendant specifically know of the existence of each victim." (People v. Taylor (2004) 32 Cal.4th 863, 868, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 510, 86 P.3d 881.) Defendant "demonstrated a conscious disregard for all life, fetal or otherwise, and hence is liable for all deaths caused by his conduct." (Id. at p. 870, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 510, 86 P.3d 881.)
There was no error.
IV
The Lesser Offense of Manslaughter
Defendant's final argument is that his federal due process rights were violated by California's statutory scheme, which fails to allow for the crime of manslaughter of an unborn human fetus and instead gives the jury an all or nothing choice between convicting for murder or acquitting.
Once again, we must determine whether defendant's guilty plea foreclosed this claim on appeal. We conclude that it does.
We have no difficulty deciding that the argument defendant here asserts challenges his guilt of the crime of second degree murder of a fetus. Properly stated, defendant's argument is that he is not guilty of the crime to which he pleaded no contest, he is guilty of some lesser, unlegislated, crime. " 'A guilty plea amounts to an admission of every element of the crime and is the equivalent of a conviction.' [Citation.]" (People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1109, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 898 P.2d 910.) By his plea, defendant admitted he was guilty of second degree murder of a fetus. His "due process" claim goes to the question of guilt or innocence and is not cognizable on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|