People v. Altobell CA3

Filed 6/13/25 P. v. Altobell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100537

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE019895)

v.

MICHAEL VANCE ALTOBELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Vance Altobell pleaded no contest to possession of fentanyl for sale and possession of a firearm by a felon in exchange for an agreed-upon aggregate sentence of seven years four months in prison. Before the trial court imposed sentence, the prosecutor recited an advisement informing defendant of the dangers of controlled substances generally, and fentanyl specifically, and cautioned that if—in the future—he manufactured, sold, distributed, or shared a controlled substance and someone died as a result, he could be charged with murder. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that

1

we should strike the advisement because it was unconstitutional. We will dismiss the appeal as presenting an unripe, nonjusticiable issue. BACKGROUND Defendant was driving a vehicle when he was stopped by law enforcement. Officers searched the vehicle and found a loaded .25-caliber handgun, approximately 92 grams of fentanyl, a digital scale, and plastic baggies. A felony complaint deemed an information charged defendant with possession of fentanyl for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count one), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count two), possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count three), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count four), and driving a vehicle without a valid driver’s license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count five). The information alleged that defendant was personally armed with a firearm in the commission of counts one and two. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c).) The information also alleged defendant had two prior serious felony convictions, and therefore came within the provisions of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant accepted the prosecution’s plea offer and pleaded no contest to counts one and four in exchange for an agreed-upon aggregate prison sentence of seven years four months. He also admitted to one prior strike conviction. Before the imposition of sentence, defense counsel objected on constitutional grounds to a “Fentanyl advisement” the prosecutor intended to recite. Defense counsel argued that the advisement was “not part of the deal,” and was “something being stated by the People to lighten their constitutional burden in any potential future prosecutions.” Defendant also filed a written motion to strike the advisement, which he characterized as an invalid term of the plea bargain.