People v. George CA3

Filed 12/30/25 P. v. George CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C102445

v. (Super. Ct. No. 62-190441)

TREYSHAUN LARON TYRONE GEORGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Treyshaun Laron Tyrone George pleaded no contest to evading a peace officer while driving against traffic. The trial court sentenced him to a stipulated term of six years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We conclude defendant was advised of the direct consequences of his plea, including his sentence, and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea agreement. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2023, a complaint filed in Placer County Superior Court charged defendant with evading a peace officer while driving against traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.41 -- count one), assault with a deadly weapon (a vehicle) (Pen. Code, § 245,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

1

subd. (a)(1) -- count two), misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1) -- count three), and misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a) -- count four). The complaint further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction for attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and as to count four, that he had a prior conviction for driving with a suspended license within the last five years (§ 14601.1, subd. (b)(2)). At the arraignment, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant’s competence and ordered an evaluation. Before defendant could be evaluated, however, he was arrested in Solano County and found incompetent to stand trial in that county. Eventually, defendant was returned to competence in Solano County, and he was brought back to Placer County where he was reevaluated, found competent, and arraigned on the complaint. Defendant entered into a plea agreement. The terms of the agreement provided that he would plead no contest to evading a peace officer while driving against traffic and admit allegations that he had a prior strike conviction, and also a prior prison term as an aggravating circumstance. He would be sentenced to an upper term of three years, doubled to six years for the prior strike, and the remaining charges would be dismissed. Defendant initialed and signed a plea form setting forth the terms of the agreement. The trial court confirmed the terms of the plea agreement with counsel, then said to defendant, “I want to just confirm with you if that’s your understanding of what’s going to happen here today.” Defendant responded, “Yes.” Before advising defendant of his rights, the trial court sought further confirmation from defendant: “[W]e’ve already talked about what the terms are and what the total plea is. It’s written here on the plea form you’ve gone over with [defense counsel], and you’ve dated and signed it twice. So this form also tells me that you talked with [defense counsel] about the consequences of your plea that are listed on both sides of this form,