Automated Summary
Key Facts
Myron Lee and his partner committed a second-degree robbery on October 20, 2023, by chasing two men into a hotel lobby, brandishing a gun, and stealing $133,000 in jewelry. Lee pleaded no contest to one robbery count on May 1, 2024, and admitted a prior serious or violent felony conviction under California's three strikes law. The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison (double the lower term of two years due to the prior strike). Lee later filed two motions to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective counsel and failure to disclose a defense fact pre-plea. The trial court denied both motions, attributing the lack of disclosure to Lee himself. The appeal concluded with no arguable issues identified, and the judgment was affirmed.
Holdings
The court affirmed the judgment after determining there were no arguable issues following a review of the record and appointed counsel's brief. The trial court denied Lee's motions to withdraw his no contest plea, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel due to Lee's failure to disclose relevant information prior to pleading. Lee was sentenced to four years in prison under the three strikes law.
Remedies
The judgment is affirmed.
Legal Principles
The trial court denied Lee's motion to withdraw his no contest plea, emphasizing that the burden of proof for such a motion requires clear and convincing evidence. Lee argued that his prior counsel provided ineffective assistance by not investigating fully before the plea, but the court found that Lee himself failed to disclose relevant information, thus not meeting the necessary burden.
Precedent Name
- People v. Kelly
- People v. Wende
- Smith v. Robbins
Cited Statute
- California Rules of Court
- California Penal Code Sections 667 and 1170.12 (Three Strikes Law)
Judge Name
- Segal
- Stone
- Feuer
Passage Text
- The trial court denied Lee's second motion to withdraw his plea, stating: 'I don't think the issue is ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to investigate. My understanding is that [Lee's prior counsel] had conversations with Mr. Lee. It was Mr. Lee who did not disclose the information that seems to be at issue in this particular motion. ... It was Mr. Lee who subsequently informed [his prior counsel] of that piece of information. And then in this actual motion that was filed, [Lee's prior counsel] says, 'It might have affected his advice.' And then at the actual hearing he said it would actually have affected his advice to Mr. Lee. However, again, I do not see it as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it is not a failure to investigate.'
- We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellate counsel for Lee has complied with his responsibilities and that there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)