NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge at the Harbor Justice Center on Tuesday denied a defense motion to withdraw a guilty plea, rejecting arguments that the accused entered the plea under duress after allegedly being beaten and assaulted while in custody.
Judge John S. Adams ruled during a May 26 motion hearing that the accused knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to falsely reporting a bomb threat, despite defense claims that the accused had been physically abused in jail in the days leading up to the plea hearing.
On Aug. 18, 2025, the accused accepted the prosecution’s offer and pleaded guilty to falsely reporting a bomb threat after experiencing beatings and assaults in jail over the weekend leading up to the hearing.
Deputy Alternate Defender Charles Hasse argued that the accused had not slept or eaten for days and felt helpless and afraid and therefore was not of sound mind and did not enter the plea voluntarily.
Former defense counsel Nadine Soliman, who represented the accused at the time of the plea, testified as a subpoenaed witness. Soliman, who has seven years of experience, stated she did not recall the accused expressing confusion about the plea or requesting an interpreter.
She also testified that it would be unusual for her not to review a Tahl form with a client, answer questions and advise them of their rights. She confirmed she informed the accused that the charge was a “wobbler,” meaning it could be filed as either a felony or misdemeanor.
During questioning by Deputy District Attorney Lauren Boyd, Soliman invoked attorney-client privilege when asked whether the accused had sought release from custody, despite the prosecution’s claim that privilege had been waived.
Both parties and the court agreed that Soliman’s performance was not deficient and that the accused did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
Hasse maintained that the accused felt he had no choice but to plead guilty because of the abuse he suffered in jail. Boyd countered that while the accused “did not have a good time in jail,” that alone does not constitute legal duress. She argued that duress would require evidence of threats directly compelling the plea.
Boyd further argued there was no evidence of mistake or fraud, noting the accused had opportunities to inform counsel of his situation and chose to proceed against legal advice.
The court considered whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the plea resulted from coercion, fraud or lack of understanding.
In his ruling, Judge Adams acknowledged the accused had suffered in custody but found that the circumstances did not rise to the level of legal duress. He emphasized the accused’s long residence in the United States and prior interactions with law enforcement as evidence of familiarity with and understanding of plea procedures.
The judge also noted the accused had multiple opportunities to inform his attorney of the alleged abuse but did not do so.
Adams concluded that the plea was made knowingly, voluntarily and with understanding, and denied the motion to withdraw.
The accused remains on formal probation through Aug. 17, 2027, and is required to complete 80 hours of CalTrans work, pay restitution and serve 28 days in jail.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
