P. v. Price
Filed 6/30/08 P. v. Price CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PRICE, Defendant and Appellant. | B205751 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA095887) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Remanded with directions and affirmed.
Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christopher Edward Price appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and his admissions that he previously had been convicted of two felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Price to four years in state prison. We remand the matter to the trial court for correction of the number of presentence custody credits awarded to Price. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.[1]
At approximately 8:30 a.m. on June 15, 2006, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy Juan Castellanos and his partner, Deputy Docuyanan, were on patrol on Laurel Street in Los Angeles. At 9607 Laurel Street, Castellanos observed a car with no rear license plate parked across the driveway. Price was sitting in the drivers seat.
Castellanos stopped and he and Docuyanan approached the car intending to give Price a warning or cite him for the Vehicle Code violations. Castellanos, who was standing on the passenger side of the car, looked in the window and saw on the passenger seat two rock-like objects resembling cocaine. Price was taken into custody and the deputies retrieved the rock-like objects.
The two rocks were analyzed by senior criminalist for the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, David Hong. Hong determined the rocks consisted of .07 grams of a solid substance containing cocaine base.
2. Procedural history.
In an information filed July 21, 2006, Price was charged with possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). It was further alleged Price had suffered prior convictions for attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) and robbery (Pen. Code, 211) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
Acting in propria persona, on August 10, 2006, Price filed a motion requesting the trial court to dismiss his prior strike convictions in the interest of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Price argued that, if the trial court were to weigh the defendants background[,] the nature of his present offenses and other individualized considerations, it would strike his prior convictions and recommend that he be allowed to enter a drug rehabilitation program. The trial court denied the motion.
At proceedings held on October 30, 2006, Price, still acting in propria persona, indicated he was interested in a plea agreement. After the prosecutor stated that there was an outstanding offer of 32 months in prison, Price indicated he would be willing to take the offer if he could be released from custody for 60 days, then report back to the court for sentencing. When the trial court asked Price why he needed to be released from custody for 60 days, Price stated he wished to put his affairs in order and spend the holidays with his family. The prosecutor objected to Prices suggestion that he be released from custody, indicating she really [had not] heard any legitimate reason why [Price] need[ed] to be released. However, after further discussion, the trial court indicated it was going to release [Price] with a Cruz[[2]] waiver. The court then stated, Just so we understand one another, if you dont come back on the day youre supposed to come back, then you could be looking at four years or six years [in state prison].
After waiving his right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, Price pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Price admitted previously having been convicted of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) and robbery (Pen. Code, 211) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The prosecutor then addressed Price, stating, And Mr. Price, you agree that if you do not come back for sentencing, the court has indicated that she will give you the high term. She is still going to strike [one] strike, but she will give you [the] high term of six years. [] Do you understand that? Price responded, Yes, maam. The following colloquy then occurred: [The prosecutor]: And you agree that youre not going to come in and make a motion to withdraw your plea? [] [Price]: There will be no motion to withdraw the plea. . . . [] [The prosecutor]; And you are going to waive your right to appeal this disposition? [] [Price]: I will waive my right to appeal. [] [The prosecutor]: And you stipulate there is a factual basis for your plea in the police reports and the preliminary hearing transcript? [] [Price]: Yes, I do.
After Price entered his plea, the trial court released him on his own recognizance and ordered him to return to court for sentencing at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 5, 2007.
Price failed to appear on January 5 and the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Price was taken into custody on April 10, 2007.
Price made several motions to continue sentencing, which the trial court granted. However, on October 23, 2007, after denying Prices motion to again continue sentencing proceedings, the trial court sentenced Price. The court struck one of Prices two prior convictions, imposed the middle term sentence of two years in prison for his conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), then doubled the term to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The trial court awarded Price presentence custody credit for 336 days actually served and 166 days of good time/work time, for a total of 502 days. The court ordered Price to register as a narcotics offender and to carry proof of registration at all times. The court then imposed a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $20 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, 76104.7), a $50 crime lab drug analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5) and a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45).
The trial court advised Price that he did not have the right to appeal the plea because that was an agreed-upon disposition. However, the court informed Price that he did have the right to appeal the sentence. When Price asked the trial court to provide him with a certificate of probable cause, the court declined to do so.
Price filed a timely notice of appeal on December 5, 2007.
This court appointed counsel to represent Price on appeal on April 21, 2008.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed in this court an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice dated May 15, 2008, the clerk of this court advised Price to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
APPELLATE REVIEW
We have examined the entire record and determined that Price is entitled to two additional days of presentence custody credit. Price was credited with 336 days actually served and is thus entitled to good time/work time credit for 168 days, rather than the 166 days awarded. (Pen. Code, 4019; see People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1282-1283.) In total, Price is entitled to 504 days of presentence custody credit. In all other respects, we are satisfied Prices counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court for correction of the number of days of presentence custody credit awarded to Price. A certified copy of a corrected abstract of judgment is then to be sent to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CROSKEY, Acting P. J.
We concur:
KITCHING, J.
ALDRICH, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
[2]People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.
