The People v. Wright CA1/3

Filed 9/30/13 P. v. Wright CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136431 v. CLARENCE CURTIS WRIGHT, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-12-22480) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Clarence Curtis Wright appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of inflicting corporeal injury on the mother of his children (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)1). He was sentenced to a probationary term of 36 months with the condition that he serve 240 days in county jail with credit for time served in actual custody of 44 days and conduct credit of 44 days. On appeal Wright claims he is entitled to withdraw his plea because at the change of plea proceeding the prosecution induced him to change his plea by implied promises that were later violated at the sentencing proceeding. We disagree with Wright’s contentions, and accordingly, affirm.2

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We reject the Attorney General’s argument that Wright’s appeal is untimely. On October 15, 2012, the 59th day after judgment, Wright was then incarcerated in county jail. On that day, he signed a notice of appeal and application requesting a certificate of probable cause, both dated October 15, 2012, and gave the two-page document to a jail officer for mailing to the county clerk. Consequently, under the “prison-delivery rule” (In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(5)), the notice of appeal and application are deemed to have been filed on October 15, 2012, and are timely.

1

FACTS A. Background On July 5, 2012, Wright was arrested after the mother of three of his children reported to the police that he had physically assaulted her. Five days later, the district attorney filed a felony complaint charging Wright with one count of inflicting corporeal injury on the mother of his children (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). B. Change of Plea Proceeding On July 24, 2012, at a change of plea proceeding, Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Norman informed the court the parties were close to agreeing that Wright would plead guilty to the felony offense in exchange for the prosecutor’s promise that she “would not be requesting state prison.” Norman further informed the court that Wright was scheduled to start junior college classes the following month, and he was very interested in being able to participate in classes at that time. However, Norman requested that Wright remain in custody until sentencing. “But if we could set sentencing the second or third week in August hopefully we would be in a position to have Mr. Wright out and supervised and in a structured situation.” After a brief recess, defense counsel informed the court that Wright was prepared to enter a guilty plea to a violation of section 273.5 as a felony. Because Wright’s college classes were starting the week of August 22, defense counsel asked the court to schedule sentencing as soon as possible as Wright and counsel were “hoping that the court and everybody would be satisfied with credit for time served.” After further discussion, the court asked Wright if anyone had made any threats or promises in exchange for his plea other than what’s been stated in open court “and that is that you would get no state prison at the outset.” Wright replied, “No.” Defense counsel interjected, “Well, your Honor, I think there’s at least the hope or maybe expectation that he would be released from custody . . . to have enough time to get enrolled in school, which starts August 22nd.” The court replied it would schedule sentencing on August 17, and would consider the issue at that time. “The promise is no state prison. I think the district attorney has indicated they want him to remain in custody until the time of