defendant without any viable defense in California

2026And a defendant facing such long odds will rarely be able to show prejudice from accepting a guilty plea that offers him a better resolution than would be likely after trial.” (Lee v. U.S. (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 367 .) “[A] factor pertinent to the decision to accept or reject a plea may be the ‘“disparity between the terms of the proposed plea bargain and the probable consequences of proceeding to trial, as viewed at the time of the offer . . . .”’” (Martinez, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 564 .) At the time of the 2009 offer, appellant faced a lengthy potential sentence of 16 months, 2, or 3 years on

2024His plea to five years for one count of criminal threats was extremely favorable compared to the maximum sentence he faced if he proceeded to trial (Espinoza, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 320 [difference between bargained-for term and likely term if convicted at trial is relevant factor]), and nothing in the record suggests that appellant had, or believed he had, any viable defenses to the charges he faced (see Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357 , 367 [“A defendant without any viable defense will be highly likely to lose at trial”]; People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564 [“ ‘an appella

2024Nor did appellant provide any evidence that at the time of his plea he “had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530; People v. Abdelsalam (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 654 , 665).