People v. Newell CA5

Filed 1/22/25 P. v. Newell CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087337 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF195195A) v.

ARTHUR DEL MARTAIKAWADZA NEWELL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Eric Bradshaw, Judge. Vicki Hightower, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and John W. Powell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Arthur Del Martaikawadza Newell pleaded no contest to possession of ammunition, after having been previously convicted of felonies, and agreed to a court trial as to whether his prior Oregon convictions were “strikes” under the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code,1 §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). The trial court ruled that the prior convictions were strike offenses under California law and, after striking the convictions, placed defendant on a two-year term of probation. Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his prior Oregon convictions were serious felony convictions under California law. The People concede that the trial court’s decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. We accept the concession and remand for the prosecution to decide whether to seek retrial of the prior strike conviction allegations. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The District Attorney of Kern County filed an information on September 1, 2023, charging defendant with possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition after having been previously convicted of a felony (§ 30305, subd. (a)). The information also alleged one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law2 and that defendant served a prior prison term (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)). Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied all allegations. As part of an agreement with the prosecution, defendant agreed to plead no contest to possession of ammunition, admit that he was previously convicted of two felonies in Oregon, and agree to a court trial as to whether his prior felony convictions qualified as strikes under the Three Strikes law. The prosecution agreed to dismiss the possession of