People v. Mardis CA5

Filed 11/20/13 P. v. Mardis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065529 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF139770B) v.

JAMIE WAYNE MARDIS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey and Michael G. Bush, Judges.† William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J. † Judge Humphrey presided over appellant’s change of plea hearing. Judge Bush sentenced appellant.

INTRODUCTION On April 27, 2012, appellant, Jamie Wayne Mardis, entered into a plea agreement in which he would admit one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 212.5, subd. (c), count 1),1 a prior serious felony allegation within the meaning of the three strikes law, and a prior prison term enhancement. In exchange for appellant’s plea, six remaining felony allegations and a number of gun enhancement allegations were to be dismissed and appellant would receive a stipulated sentence of 11 years in prison.2 Appellant executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver and plea form acknowledging the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of his plea, and that he was waiving his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. On April 27, 2012, in open court, appellant acknowledged that he was going to admit the above-noted allegations and would receive a stipulated prison term of 11 years. Appellant acknowledged to the court that he executed the plea form, went over constitutional rights with his attorney, understood his rights, and was waiving those rights. The parties acknowledged that there was a factual basis for the plea. Appellant pled no contest to one count of second degree robbery. Appellant admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law and a prior prison term enhancement. The court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the remaining allegations. On June 26, 2012, the trial court denied appellant’s request to strike the serious prior felony allegation pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero)