Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Greenwood CA4/3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: G064807

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Greenwood CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064807

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23HF1973)

MAXI YVONNE GREENWOOD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Carlton P. Biggs, Retired Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Affirmed.
Ryan Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Maxi Yvonne Greenwood was arrested after she
allegedly did “donuts” in a parking lot going upwards of 70 miles per hour
while swerving around pedestrians and other vehicles. She pled guilty to
misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),
reckless driving in an off-street parking facility (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd.
(b)), and two counts of resisting and obstructing a law enforcement officer
(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced her to 242 days in
jail, giving Greenwood credit for time served in that amount, and suspended
imposition of the sentence pending one year of formal probation.
Just shy of six months after being sentenced, Greenwood filed a
motion to withdraw her guilty plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1018. An
accompanying declaration by her counsel set forth the alleged good cause on
which the motion was based, which included the following: at the time she
pled guilty, she was in-custody in Orange County and had an out-of-county
hold from San Diego County based on two then-pending matters; she “was
under emotional duress to enter pleas of guilty to a credit-for-time served
sentence” because jail personnel were allegedly “verbally, psychologically and
emotionally abusive” to her; she also felt “unjustly pressured” because “she
feared that the San Diego County cases and serious charges would be used
against her if she went to trial on her Orange County matters when she
maintained her innocence on them and wished to fight the San Diego
allegations”; and after being released on probation in this case, a jury found
her not guilty in one of the San Diego cases and the other was dismissed by
the prosecution.

2
The trial court denied Greenwood’s motion to withdraw her plea,
finding there was no “good cause to believe that there was any miscarriage of
justice in the entry of the plea.” Greenwood timely appealed.1
We appointed counsel to represent Greenwood on appeal. Counsel
filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised
the court they found no arguable issues to assert on her behalf. (Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende).) To assist us in our independent review under Wende, counsel
suggested we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in
denying Greenwood’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
Counsel and this court notified Greenwood she could file a
supplemental brief on her own behalf. However, this court did not receive a
supplemental brief and the time to file one has passed.
After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the order.
DISCUSSION
When appellate counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal,
an appellate court must independently review the record for arguable issues.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) We have done so and have found no
arguable issues, including the one identified by counsel.
“A trial court may allow a defendant to withdraw his or her guilty
or no contest plea under [Penal Code] section 1018 for good cause shown by
clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] ‘To establish good cause to
withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant must show by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she was operating under mistake, ignorance, or any other

1 Greenwood did not obtain a certificate of probable cause before

filing her notice of appeal, but she later obtained one after this court notified
her it was considering dismissing the appeal due to a lack of such certificate.

3
factor overcoming the exercise of his or her free judgment, including
inadvertence, fraud, or duress.’ [Citations.] The defendant may not withdraw
a plea because the defendant has changed his or her mind.” (People v. Archer
(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 693, 702.) The facts presented to the trial court do not
demonstrate it erred in finding a lack of good cause for withdrawal of the
guilty plea.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

DELANEY, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOODING, J.

SCOTT, J.

4