Filed 6/10/24 P. v. Williams-Leslie CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082291
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2001174)
NICOLAS ALEXANDER WILLIAMS- OPINION LESLIE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gail O’Rane, Judge.
Affirmed.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Nicolas Alexander
Williams-Leslie pled guilty to willfully and unlawfully taking, enticing away, keeping,
1 1 withholding, and concealing a child (Pen. Code, § 278.5; count 1) and misdemeanor
resisting and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). In return, the
remaining allegation was dismissed and defendant was placed on formal probation for a
period of three years on various terms and conditions of probation. About two years
later, defendant violated the terms of his probation by incurring new misdemeanor
convictions. After he admitted to violating his probation in this case, defendant was
reinstated on probation. Defendant later moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the current
case. After the trial court denied his motion, defendant appealed from an order after
judgment.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review
of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2020, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with willfully
and unlawfully taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, and concealing a child
(§ 278.5; count 1), misdemeanor violating child custody and restraining order (§ 166,
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 The underlying factual background is not relevant to this appeal.
2 subd. (a)(4); count 2), and misdemeanor resisting and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1); count 3).
On August 20, 2020, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 3. In return, defendant
was promised a grant of probation for a period of three years and dismissal of count 2.
Prior to pleading guilty, defendant executed a felony plea form in which he
acknowledged the plea agreement and signed and initialed relevant portions of the plea
form. In pertinent part, defendant initialed the statements advising him of his
constitutional rights, the consequences of the plea, that no one had threatened or
pressured him into pleading guilty, and the consequences of violating his probationary
terms. He also initialed the statements stating he had adequate time to discuss the plea,
his rights, the consequences of the plea, and any defenses with his attorney. The plea
form was also signed by the prosecutor and defendant’s counsel. The trial court went
over the plea agreement with defendant and found that defendant understood his plea
form, the nature of the charges, the consequences of pleading guilty, and his
constitutional rights. The court also found that defendant’s plea and waiver were
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given and that there was a factual basis for the
plea. Defendant was thereafter immediately sentenced in accordance with his plea
agreement, and count 2 was dismissed. He was placed on probation for a period of three
years on various terms and conditions of probation, including the condition that he obey
all laws, ordinances, and court orders.
3 It appears that by September 8, 2022, defendant was back in court for allegedly
violating probation. Defendant initially proceeded in propria persona and, following
numerous court appearances and various motions, was appointed counsel on July 13,
2023.
On July 13, 2023, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled guilty in
two misdemeanor cases, case Nos. RIM2010940 and RIM2102656, and admitted to 3 violating probation in this case by incurring the new convictions. The trial court went
over the plea agreements with defendant, and found that after directly examining
defendant, defendant understood the nature of the charges against him and the
consequences of his pleas and admission. The court also found that defendant’s pleas
and admission were freely and voluntarily made and that he knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. Defendant was thereafter immediately
sentenced in all three cases. With regard to case Nos. RIM2010940 and RIM2102656,
defendant was sentenced to time served, and in this case, he was reinstated on probation
with an expiration date of June 3, 2026, and additional probationary terms.
On July 17, 2023, defendant in propria persona filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas in all of the cases pursuant to section 1018 based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, his claim that he was innocent of the charges, his misunderstanding that he could
3 In case No. RIM2010940, defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2), and in case No. RIM2102656, he pled guilty to misdemeanor violating a restraining order (§ 273.6). A third misdemeanor case, case No. RIM2209063, was dismissed in the interest of justice (§ 1385) pursuant to the People’s motion.
4 examine the witnesses after pleading guilty, and his claim of having a mental defect that
impaired his ability to process information. Defendant in propria persona filed an
amended motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, raising the same grounds, on August 15,
On September 12, 2023, the People filed opposition to defendant’s motion to
withdraw the guilty pleas, arguing his motion was untimely as to the felony case. The
People also asserted that defendant had not shown good cause to withdraw his pleas, that
defendant was not ignorant of any fact or law, and that defendant was advised of his
constitutional rights and freely waived those rights.
A hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 and People v.
Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80 was held on September 29, 2023, before Judge Steven G.
Counelis, regarding defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After hearing
from counsel and defendant and reviewing the transcript of the taking of the plea, Judge
Counelis denied the Marsden/Sanchez motion, finding counsel was not ineffective.
Also on September 29, 2023, defendant appeared before Judge O’Rane for a
hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. When the court inquired as to why
defendant wished to withdraw his pleas, defendant claimed that his ability to make an
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 6/10/24 P. v. Williams-Leslie CA4/2 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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082291
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2001174)
NICOLAS ALEXANDER WILLIAMS- OPINION LESLIE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gail O’Rane, Judge.
Affirmed.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Nicolas Alexander
Williams-Leslie pled guilty to willfully and unlawfully taking, enticing away, keeping,
1 1 withholding, and concealing a child (Pen. Code, § 278.5; count 1) and misdemeanor
resisting and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). In return, the
remaining allegation was dismissed and defendant was placed on formal probation for a
period of three years on various terms and conditions of probation. About two years
later, defendant violated the terms of his probation by incurring new misdemeanor
convictions. After he admitted to violating his probation in this case, defendant was
reinstated on probation. Defendant later moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the current
case. After the trial court denied his motion, defendant appealed from an order after
judgment.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review
of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2020, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with willfully
and unlawfully taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, and concealing a child
(§ 278.5; count 1), misdemeanor violating child custody and restraining order (§ 166,
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 The underlying factual background is not relevant to this appeal.
2 subd. (a)(4); count 2), and misdemeanor resisting and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1); count 3).
On August 20, 2020, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 3. In return, defendant
was promised a grant of probation for a period of three years and dismissal of count 2.
Prior to pleading guilty, defendant executed a felony plea form in which he
acknowledged the plea agreement and signed and initialed relevant portions of the plea
form. In pertinent part, defendant initialed the statements advising him of his
constitutional rights, the consequences of the plea, that no one had threatened or
pressured him into pleading guilty, and the consequences of violating his probationary
terms. He also initialed the statements stating he had adequate time to discuss the plea,
his rights, the consequences of the plea, and any defenses with his attorney. The plea
form was also signed by the prosecutor and defendant’s counsel. The trial court went
over the plea agreement with defendant and found that defendant understood his plea
form, the nature of the charges, the consequences of pleading guilty, and his
constitutional rights. The court also found that defendant’s plea and waiver were
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given and that there was a factual basis for the
plea. Defendant was thereafter immediately sentenced in accordance with his plea
agreement, and count 2 was dismissed. He was placed on probation for a period of three
years on various terms and conditions of probation, including the condition that he obey
all laws, ordinances, and court orders.
3 It appears that by September 8, 2022, defendant was back in court for allegedly
violating probation. Defendant initially proceeded in propria persona and, following
numerous court appearances and various motions, was appointed counsel on July 13,
2023.
On July 13, 2023, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled guilty in
two misdemeanor cases, case Nos. RIM2010940 and RIM2102656, and admitted to 3 violating probation in this case by incurring the new convictions. The trial court went
over the plea agreements with defendant, and found that after directly examining
defendant, defendant understood the nature of the charges against him and the
consequences of his pleas and admission. The court also found that defendant’s pleas
and admission were freely and voluntarily made and that he knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. Defendant was thereafter immediately
sentenced in all three cases. With regard to case Nos. RIM2010940 and RIM2102656,
defendant was sentenced to time served, and in this case, he was reinstated on probation
with an expiration date of June 3, 2026, and additional probationary terms.
On July 17, 2023, defendant in propria persona filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas in all of the cases pursuant to section 1018 based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, his claim that he was innocent of the charges, his misunderstanding that he could
3 In case No. RIM2010940, defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2), and in case No. RIM2102656, he pled guilty to misdemeanor violating a restraining order (§ 273.6). A third misdemeanor case, case No. RIM2209063, was dismissed in the interest of justice (§ 1385) pursuant to the People’s motion.
4 examine the witnesses after pleading guilty, and his claim of having a mental defect that
impaired his ability to process information. Defendant in propria persona filed an
amended motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, raising the same grounds, on August 15,
On September 12, 2023, the People filed opposition to defendant’s motion to
withdraw the guilty pleas, arguing his motion was untimely as to the felony case. The
People also asserted that defendant had not shown good cause to withdraw his pleas, that
defendant was not ignorant of any fact or law, and that defendant was advised of his
constitutional rights and freely waived those rights.
A hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 and People v.
Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80 was held on September 29, 2023, before Judge Steven G.
Counelis, regarding defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After hearing
from counsel and defendant and reviewing the transcript of the taking of the plea, Judge
Counelis denied the Marsden/Sanchez motion, finding counsel was not ineffective.
Also on September 29, 2023, defendant appeared before Judge O’Rane for a
hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. When the court inquired as to why
defendant wished to withdraw his pleas, defendant claimed that his ability to make an
informed decision was impaired due to being on his anti-seizure medication.
Specifically, he wanted to present witnesses and did not understand he would not be able
to do so after pleading guilty. In response to the court’s query about the anti-seizure
medication, defendant stated that he had taken the medication on occasion, preemptively,
5 if he felt a seizure was coming on, for the past year. On the day he pled guilty, it had
been at least two days since he had taken the medication.
The prosecutor noted that she had met with defendant several times since October
2022 and that he never seemed impaired in any way. She explained that defendant
always appeared to understand what was going on and was very proactive on his case and
that on the day he pled guilty, he was concerned about the criminal protective orders that
were in place and wanted to make sure he would still be able to see his child.
Following further argument by defendant, the trial court found no evidence, aside
from defendant’s own statement, that the anti-seizure medication had any effect on
defendant’s ability to understand. The court noted that defendant had appeared before the
court countless times since September 2022 and that defendant was always prepared and
knowledgeable. On the day defendant pled guilty and admitted to violating probation,
the court recalled having long discussions with defendant both on and off the record. The
court further explained that defendant’s counsel also went over the pleas and admission
with defendant. The court explained that it was always very cautious and careful to look
at the person when taking a plea for any indication that he or she may not understand or is
under the influence, and recalled defendant appeared very clear to the court the day he
pled and admitted the probation violation. The court noted that in fact, defendant had
discussed issues with regards to what he owed on the probation order and the restrictions
in regards to visitation with his child. The court thereafter denied defendant’s motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas and admission in all of his cases. Defendant timely appealed
6 from the present felony case and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was
granted.
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon
examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth
a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue of whether
the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty
plea.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
7 IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.