California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Menchaca, H044313 (Cal. App. 2018):
that he was too impaired to understand the proceedingsdid not compel the court to grant the motion, particularly given defendant's burden and the applicable clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. (See People v. Ravaux, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 918 ["The sole evidence that his judgment was affected by medication is defendant's own assertions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea. These assertions were contrary to the position he took under oath at the time the guilty plea was given. They were also at odds with what the trial judge, who presided over both hearings, recalled about the demeanor and performance of Defendant at the plea hearing."].) This record shows a reasonable basis for the trial court's decision to deny the motion to withdraw the plea and therefore it was not an abuse of discretion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.