P. v. Komnenus
Filed 5/21/10 P.
v. Komnenus CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KOMNENUS,
Defendant and Appellant.
F058475
(Super. Ct. No. MF008608A and MF008813A)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT*
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Cory J. Woodward, Judge.
John
L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney
General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P.
Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, Raymond L.
Brosterhous II and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Appellant,
Christopher Komnenus, challenges the trial court's denial of his request to be
committed to the California Rehabilitation
Center (CRC). According to
appellant, the trial court erred when it determined that he was ineligible for
CRC based on his parole status.
However,
appellant failed to object to this allegedly inadequate reason in the trial
court. Consequently, appellant cannot
raise this issue for the first time on appeal.
The judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Case No. MF008608A
In February 2009, appellant was
charged with transporting or selling ecstasy in violation of Health and Safety
Code section 11379 and with possession of ecstasy in violation of Health
and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). It was further alleged that appellant had
served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (b).
Appellant
entered into a plea bargain in which he pled guilty to possession of ecstasy
and admitted three prior prison term enhancements in exchange for Proposition
36 probation. Appellant was thereafter
found eligible for treatment and placed on Proposition 36 probation.
In July
2009, police officers on patrol observed appellant riding a motorcycle with an
unreadable license plate. When the
officers attempted to make a traffic stop, appellant accelerated away. Appellant failed to stop for several posted
signs and continued to evade the officers by driving in the wrong lane and
swerving in and out of traffic at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. Appellant's motorcycle was eventually stopped
and appellant was arrested.
Appellant was charged with
unlawfully evading a peace officer while operating a motor vehicle with a
willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others in violation of Vehicle
Code section 2800.2, unlawfully obstructing peace officers by use of force or
violence in violation of Penal Code section 69, and driving without a license
in violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1, subdivision (a). Three prior prison terms were also alleged.
Appellant pled guilty to the unlawful evasion of a peace officer
count and admitted one prior prison term enhancement in exchange for the
dismissal of the other charges and enhancements. As a condition of the plea, appellant was
promised that his sentence would not exceed a total of three years and that he
could make a request for treatment at CRC.
Appellant admitted that he had violated the terms of his Proposition 36 probation
in case No. MF008608A.
The trial court sentenced appellant
to state prison for the midterm of two
years with a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison enhancement in case
No. MF008813A. Appellant's request
for a CRC commitment was denied. In case
No. MF008608A, appellant was sentenced to state prison for the midterm of
two years with three consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison
enhancements to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. MF008813A.[1]
At the conclusion of the sentencing
hearing, defense counsel asked â€
| Description | Appellant, Christopher Komnenus, challenges the trial court's denial of his request to be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). According to appellant, the trial court erred when it determined that he was ineligible for CRC based on his parole status. However, appellant failed to object to this allegedly inadequate reason in the trial court. Consequently, appellant cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal. The judgment will be affirmed. |
| Rating |
