P. v. Beeson

Filed 3/2/06 P. v. Beeson CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant, David Beeson, appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment of commitment after his not guilty by reason of insanity plea. On appeal, defendant's counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking the court to review the entire record to determine whether there are arguable issues. After reviewing the record, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing. We asked the parties to address whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to vacate the judgment where the court failed to obtain a personal plea of guilty by reason of insanity, failed to obtain a waiver of defendant's right to jury trial and failed to advise the defendant of his constitutional rights. We conclude that the trial court did err in denying the motion and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

After arraignment, defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1)[1] on April 5, 2000. Even though defendant did not enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at that time, the court ordered that defendant be evaluated pursuant to section 1026, subdivision (a). After the court received the initial evaluation report, it ordered another evaluation pursuant to section 1027. Despite a finding by both evaluators that defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense, on August 8, 2000, after being advised and waiving his rights, defendant personally entered a plea of guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) Prior to the entry of the plea, the trial court asked if the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was being withdrawn. Defense counsel said that no such plea had been entered.

On October 31, 2000, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to vacate his guilty plea after the district attorney conceded the motion. At the hearing, defense counsel said that defendant wished to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and would submit on the issue of sanity based on the reports which had previously been ordered and received. Without asking defendant to personally enter the plea, or asking defendant to waive his rights to a jury trial or advising defendant of the consequences of his plea, the trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. On November 29, 2003, the trial court found that defendant was not sane within the meaning of section 1026 and ordered the defendant committed to Atascadero State Hospital, and suspended criminal proceedings. The maximum term of confinement was set at four years.

On March 3, 2003, defendant filed a motion to vacate the commitment on the ground that he did not personally enter the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 1018 and that he did not personally waive his state or federal right to jury trial. Defendant subsequently withdrew the motion without prejudice to renewing it at a later time. Defendant did not refile the motion to vacate the plea again until January 21, 2004. On February 11, 2004, the trial court denied the motion, finding that the motion was more akin to a writ of coram nobis and that defendant had failed to make the requisite showing. On March 12, 2004, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying the second motion to vacate.

On appeal, defendant's counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. After reviewing the record in this matter, we asked the parties to brief the issue of â€