P. v. Roberts

Filed 8/25/08 P. v. Roberts CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

Defendant Shurron Lamont Roberts pleaded no contest to one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code,  11055, subd. (d)(2), 11378.) He admitted enhancement allegations that he had been convicted twice previously of felony drug offenses. (Health & Saf. Code,  11370.2, subd. (c).) Sentenced to nine years eight months in state prison, defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred prejudicially in failing to invoke narcotic addict commitment proceedings or, in the alternative, to make a finding that defendants record and probation report indicated such a pattern of criminality that he did not constitute a fit subject for commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051.^[1] Finding no merit in his contentions of error, we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant, expressly informed of the prison exposure in this case, entered the aforementioned plea and admissions, in return for dismissal of other pending charges. His counsel conceded that the evidence would show that defendant willfully and knowingly possessed 4.1 grams of methamphetamine with the specific intent to sell it. Probation was denied and he was sentenced to the aggregate term of nine years eight months.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to refer him for an evaluation pursuant to section 3051 or, in the alternative, to give a statement of reasons for choosing not to do so in the course of sentencing him. He argues that referral was mandatory because the court was aware that he was a drug addict. The argument is unpersuasive and the contention of error has no merit.

Section 3051 provides that following conviction and upon imposition of sentence, if it appears to the judge that the defendant may be addicted the court shall order an evaluation. However, where the sentence exceeds six years imprisonment in the aggregate, section 3051 does not apply. ( 3052, subd. (a)(2).) As section 3051 did not apply, the court did not err in failing to proceed thereunder.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

SIMS , Acting P.J.

HULL, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.