P. v. Pomel
Filed 7/30/10 P. v. Pomel CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Appellant,
v.
QUEEN DANIEL POMEL,
Defendant
and Respondent.
E050189
(Super.Ct.No.
INF066658)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of Riverside
County. Dale R. Wells,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Dismissed.
Rod
Pacheco, District Attorney, and Matt Reilly, Deputy District Attorney, for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Richard
Glen Boire, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Respondent.
Pursuant to an indicated sentence, defendant and respondent Queen Daniel
Pomel pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1] and burglary (§ 459). Defendant was immediately sentenced to a
suspended low term of two years and placed on probation. The People contend that the trial court's
immediate sentencing was in excess of the trial court's jurisdiction because
the victim was not given notice of sentencing, and a probation report was not
ordered even though the People requested one.
We dismiss because the People's remedy was to file a writ of mandate or prohibition, and we
are without jurisdiction to review on appeal a challenge by the People to an
order granting probation. (§ 1238, subd.
(d).)
In chambers, and
off the record, counsel and the trial court conferred. Based upon the facts as described by counsel,
the trial court offered an indicated sentence of two years in state prison,
suspended, with a grant of formal probation for 36 months. On the record, in open court, the trial court
then accepted defendant's guilty plea and sentenced her. The People then stated their opposition to the
plea, objected to not having a probation report prior to sentencing, even though
they specifically said in chambers that they were requesting one, and requested
sentencing be continued to see if the victim wanted to be present. The trial court indicated it had intended to
permit the People to make their statement prior to stating â€
| Description | Pursuant to an indicated sentence, defendant and respondent Queen Daniel Pomel pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1] and burglary (§ 459). Defendant was immediately sentenced to a suspended low term of two years and placed on probation. The People contend that the trial court's immediate sentencing was in excess of the trial court's jurisdiction because the victim was not given notice of sentencing, and a probation report was not ordered even though the People requested one. We dismiss because the People's remedy was to file a writ of mandate or prohibition, and we are without jurisdiction to review on appeal a challenge by the People to an order granting probation. (§ 1238, subd. (d).) |
| Rating |
