P. v. Putney
On November 29, 2010, appellant Thomas Earl Putney was charged in a criminal complaint with possession of a dirk and dagger. (Former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a).)[1] The complaint further alleged three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). At his arraignment the following day, Putney pled not guilty to the charge and denied all allegations.
On the date set for the preliminary hearing, December 17, 2010, Putney withdrew his not guilty plea and waived both his right to a preliminary hearing and his constitutional rights. He entered an unconditional no contest plea to the charge and admitted his three prior strikes. After Putney signed a change of plea form, the court accepted the plea, found it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and there was a factual basis for it. Defense counsel informed the court the change of plea was against his advice.
Putney was sentenced on January 21, 2011. The trial court denied defense counsel’s Romero[2] motion to strike two or all three of his prior strikes, and sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life. Putney filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not include a certificate of probable cause. This court subsequently granted his application for permission to seek a certificate of probable cause. Putney filed a request for a certificate with the trial court, which it granted.
On appeal, Putney contends (1) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to declare a doubt as to his competency, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in declining to grant his Romero motion, and (3) his sentence violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the double jeopardy clause. We disagree and affirm.
Comments on P. v. Putney