People v. Wolfe CA3

Filed 4/21/14 P. v. Wolfe CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C073497

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62113983)

v.

JAMIE AARON WOLFE, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jamie Aaron Wolfe, Sr., pleaded no contest to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, driving while having a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher, and driving on a suspended license. He also admitted having committed the crimes within 10 years of three prior intoxication offenses, and admitted two violations of probation. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court determined that defendant was previously convicted of a “serious” felony within the meaning of the three strikes law and thus the prior conviction qualified as a “strike.” On appeal, defendant contends and the People concede: (1) the trial court’s determination that defendant’s 2000 conviction for battery with serious bodily injury

1

(Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d))1 was a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law is not supported by sufficient evidence; and (2) defendant is entitled to additional days of presentence custody credit. We agree with the first contention, and remand the matter for retrial of the first issue and resentencing. BACKGROUND When officers stopped defendant for making an illegal U-turn and for speeding, he was drunk. At that time, he also had three prior DUI convictions and his license had been suspended. The subsequently filed complaint alleged (among other things) that defendant had a prior conviction in 2000 for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In connection with his no contest plea, defendant waived his right to a jury determination of the truth of the prior conviction allegation and the matter proceeded to trial by the court. The court admitted into evidence certified copies of records showing defendant was previously convicted in 2000 of violating section 243, subdivision (d) on a no contest plea to a charge of felony battery resulting in the infliction of serious bodily injury. The following documents were submitted by the People to prove the prior conviction: (1) a complaint filed in August 2000, charging defendant with a felony violation of section 243, subdivision (d), “in that said defendant did willfully and unlawfully use force and violence upon the person of [the victim], resulting in the infliction of serious bodily injury on such person,” and alleging that the offense constitutes a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law; (2) handwritten minute orders; (3) minute orders reflecting defendant’s nolo contendere plea to the charge and sentence to five years’ probation; and (4) a certified rap sheet and a certified report