People v. Carter CA3

Filed 12/26/13 P. v. Carter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073582

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR82744)

v.

TESS MEGAN CARTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tess Megan Carter appeals from the judgment following her plea of no contest to one count of transporting marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11360.) She contends that the case must be remanded to permit her to withdraw her plea, because it was induced by the improper promise that she could obtain review on appeal of the trial court’s grant of the prosecution’s motion to exclude evidence at trial related to her

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

defense based on the Compassionate Use Act. (§ 11362.5 et seq.) The People concede that the case must be remanded, and we agree. BACKGROUND After four pounds of marijuana were found in the trunk of her car during a traffic stop, defendant was charged with transporting marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale. In anticipation of defendant’s possible argument at trial that she is a member of a collective or cooperative entitled to the protection of the statutes related to the regulation of medical marijuana, the People moved successfully in limine to exclude all references to the Compassionate Use Act or medical marijuana at trial. Defendant’s subsequent in limine motion to determine whether her trial testimony would be sufficient to allow her to present evidence as to the availability of an affirmative defense pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (§ 11362.7 et seq.) was characterized by the court as a motion for reconsideration of its previous ruling granting the prosecution’s in limine motion and denied. Promptly thereafter, at the same proceeding, defendant entered into a negotiated disposition of the case at which the trial court stated the following: “To the extent a certificate of probable cause is required, one should be granted in that this plea is being made solely based upon the legal rulings that I have made previously in the case. You both agree with that? “[Prosecutor]: Yes. “[Defense Counsel]: Yes, your Honor. “The Court: [Defendant] is entering the plea based upon the fact that my rulings pretty much took away the medical marijuana defense, which is going to be contested on appeal. But as to the West plea [People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595], you need this to point to in the transcript: The Probation Department should not expect her to state that she knows she is guilty and sorry. Her reason for this plea is that she believes she had a