People v. Robison CA5

Filed 4/10/14 P. v. Robison 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F067525

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF142506A)

v. OPINION RAYMOND RAY ROBISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Nash and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

PROCEEDINGS On July 23, 2012, appellant, Raymond Ray Robison waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl1 after executing a plea waiver form and entered into a plea agreement. Under the original terms of the agreement, appellant faced a sentence of 12 years 4 months. Appellant admitted allegations that he committed felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), count 1),2 felony receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 2), two counts of petty theft with a qualifying prior conviction (§ 666, counts 3 & 4), felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, count 5), and misdemeanor resistance of an officer (§ 148, subd. (a), count 6).3 Appellant also admitted three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law and seven prior prison term enhancements. On August 21, 2012, the trial court granted appellant’s request to strike the prior serious felony convictions. The court noted that its proposed sentence of 12 years 4 months was legally inappropriate. The court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years and to seven consecutive one-year terms for each of the prior prison term enhancements for a total term of 10 years.4 Terms on the remaining counts were stayed. The court stayed execution of its sentence and placed appellant on probation upon