P. v. Marshall
Appellant Chad Marshall appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admission of a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (c)-(j)).[1] In exchange for his plea, the People agreed to dismiss additional charges and enhancements and the court indicated it would impose a four-year term, the two-year midterm doubled.[2] At sentencing, appellant requested a continuance to collect character reference letters. The court denied the request noting, “This is low term two years doubled for four. It’s not going to get any better than that.†On appeal, Marshall contends the court erred in denying him the opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence because the indicated term was the middle term. He submits the court was unaware of its discretion to impose a lower term than the indicated term. The People respond that the “indicated term†in this case was part of the plea bargain and binding on the court once it approved the plea agreement. As such, there was no good cause for a continuance to further consider the matter of sentencing. We affirm.
FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The police responded to an anonymous citizen complaint of an individual selling drugs in an alley in Bakersfield. Investigating officers found Marshall, who matched the description of the seller, nearby. Officers searched Marshall and found methamphetamine, lorazepam pills, heroin, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.
Marshall was charged with seven felony and misdemeanor offenses, five prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a prior strike conviction. Eventually, he agreed to a prosecution offer to plead no contest to possession of heroin and to admit his prior strike conviction in exchange for “a Court-indicated four years,†“Mid term two plus—or times two for four.â€
At sentencing, the court denied Marshall’s request for a continuance so his family could collect character reference letters. The court noted, “This is low term two years doubled for four. It’s not going to get any better than that.â€
Comments on P. v. Marshall