People v. Coleman CA1/5

Filed 9/8/25 P. v. Coleman CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171186

v. (San Mateo County DANNIELLE HEATHER COLEMAN, Super. Ct. No. 19NF011540A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dannielle Heather Coleman appeals a judgment following her plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court sentenced her to two years of supervised probation. Coleman argues that her sentence is unauthorized because she did not orally plead no contest to the methamphetamine charge in open court. We disagree and affirm. I. BACKGROUND In January 2020, the People filed a felony information charging Coleman with possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) She initially pled not guilty. In June 2024, the trial court called the case for trial. Coleman appeared and her counsel informed the court that Coleman wanted to retain private counsel. The court denied the request as untimely and asked

1

Coleman if she was prepared to go to trial that afternoon. She responded that she did not want to go to trial and would “accept the [pretrial] offer.” The court passed the matter so that Coleman could speak with her counsel. The court later recalled the case and asked the parties how they would like to proceed. Coleman’s counsel responded, “[i]t’s my understanding that [Coleman] wants to go ahead with a People versus West1 plea to the charge.” He then presented the court with a no contest plea form signed by Coleman. The court asked Coleman if she had an opportunity to review this plea form with her counsel and she responded, “[y]es.” The trial court then asked Coleman whether she understood that “[i]f” she entered “a People v. West plea,” she would be found guilty of the offense (provided the prosecution “state[d] sufficient facts”) and would be waiving her right to a jury trial. The court continued that this included a waiver of her “right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses called against [her]” as well as her right to testify or remain silent at trial. Coleman replied, “[y]es.” The court then asked Coleman if it was her understanding that she would receive “two years felony probation, 60 days in the county jail” as an “outcome of a finding of guilty” and she again replied, “[y]es.” After the prosecution provided a factual basis for the plea, the trial court found Coleman “guilty pursuant to People v. West,” suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed her on two years of supervised probation. Coleman timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION Coleman argues that reversal is warranted because although she