People v. Pollard CA2/4

Filed 3/26/14 P. v. Pollard CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B250254

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA082389) v.

VURNELL D. POLLARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stan Blumenfeld, Judge. Affirmed. Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Vurnell D. Pollard, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Defendant Vurnell D. Pollard appeals from the judgment entered after his no contest plea to a count of first degree residential robbery and a count of first degree residential burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and defendant filed a supplemental brief. Defendant was charged with one count of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and one count of first degree residential burglary (§ 459)1 as to the same residence; both crimes were alleged to have occurred on January 31, 2011. A personal use of a firearm allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) was attached to each count. In a third count, defendant was charged with evading a police officer on the same date (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). In a fourth count, he was charged with first degree residential burglary (§ 459) for allegedly burglarizing a different residence on January 30, 2011. As to all counts, it was alleged that defendant had been released on bail in case no. SA070507 (§ 12022.1). A prior strike conviction also was alleged. Defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 4 and admitted the firearm allegation and prior strike conviction in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence of 23 years and eight months. At the time of the plea, it was understood that defendant’s sentence in this case would run concurrently to his sentence in case no. SA070507. Defendant was later allowed to make a pro. per. motion to withdraw his plea. The motion was based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, including an allegation that counsel had promised defendant could recover property seized from his car at the time of arrest. The court denied the motion, finding no such promise was made. Before sentencing, the court reconsidered whether it should allow defendant to withdraw his plea on the ground that his sentence in this case should run consecutively to the sentence in case no. SA070507. It concluded that a concurrent sentence was correct under People v. Rosbury (1997) 15 Cal.4th 206, 211, because defendant had not yet been delivered to prison. The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, awarding defendant 798 days of actual credit and 119 days of conduct credit. The court held an evidentiary