Filed 2/7/12 P. v. Bauer
CA4/1
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL RAYMOND BAUER,
Defendant and Appellant.
D059255
(Super. Ct.
No. SCS230471)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2009, seven-year-old Joel
H. was in the bathroom of a McDonald's fast food restaurant. When Joel came out of the restroom, Michael
Raymond Bauer followed and gave Joel some paper towels. Joel told his mother Bauer was
"crazy" and had touched Joel.
Bauer quickly left the establishment.
Joel's mother immediately reported the incident to trolley security
officers. In an interview after the
event, Joel reported that Bauer helped him wash his hands, then pushed him
against the wall and put his hands down Joel's pants, and touched Joel's penis.
In a felony
complaint filed by the District Attorney of
County on July 13, 2009,
Bauer was charged with one count of violating Penal Code
288, subdivision (a). On March 19, 2010, an information was
filed (case No. CS230471).
On December 17, 2009, Bauer initialed
and signed an acknowledgement of constitutional rights for those intending to
represent themselves. The form, required
pursuant to People v. Lopez (1977) 71
Cal.App.3d 568, sets forth the waiver of rights occurring on a plea of guilty
or no contest.
On December 21, 2010, pursuant to a
himself, Bauer entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense. He was placed on five years' formal probation
with certain conditions, including not associating with minors, nor being in
places where minors congregate unless with an adult approved by the probation
officer. Bauer received credit for time
served and was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290.
On February 2, 2011, Bauer was arrested
for allegedly violating probation in case No. CS230471.
On February 18, 2010, Bauer filed a
February 28, 2010, the
court granted Bauer's request for a certificate of probable cause.
On appeal,
Bauer seeks to withdraw his guilty plea.
ANALYSIS
Bauer's
opening and reply briefs reflect that he does not allege the trial court failed to properly advise him or that he
lacked the mental capacity
to enter into the plea agreement.
Rather, his argument is that the plea was not voluntary or intelligent
because he did not have "sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences" of the plea, and further, was a form
of mistake and inadvertence overreaching his free will and judgment. (People
v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1178; People
v. Mortera (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 861, 864.)
We disagree.
The record
of the sentencing hearing reflects Bauer responded fully, clearly and concisely
to the court's inquiries. Where he had
questions, he asked the court to answer them and provide additional
explanations, if necessary, to his understanding of the plea and its
consequences. At times he provided
information neither the court nor deputy district attorney possessed. Indeed, as he commented and the court
acknowledged, his plea forms displayed the level of sophistication rivaling
that of attorneys.
Bauer
requests we focus on the questions he raised concerning the conditions of
probation. He urges that the number and
nature of the questions he asked about the conditions reflect his lack of
understanding. To the contrary, the
record reflects Bauer's questions were designed to help him understand exactly
what he could and could not do as a condition of probation. For example, he asked a series of questions
about the circumstances under which he might find himself in the presence of
children, including at family gatherings.
The court addressed what was meant by prohibiting Bauer from
"associating" with minors. The
court referred him to his probation officer with specific questions he might
have. The record demonstrates that
contrary to being confused, Bauer was well aware of the myriad circumstances in
which he might be around children and was attempting to define the acceptable
parameters of his conduct.
DISPOSITION
Judgment
affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES,
J.
McINTYRE,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
All further statutory references
are to the Penal Code.
