People v. Ross CA5

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Ross 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F066279

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CM7533A)

TERRILL LEE ROSS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. John G. O’Rourke, Judge. Deborah Prucha, 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., Kane, J., and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION On October 25, 2012, appellant, Terrill Lee Ross, entered into a plea agreement in which he would admit one count of conspiracy to furnish a controlled substance in a state prison (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1) & 4573.9, count 1)1 and a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. In exchange for appellant’s change of plea, four other counts and three special allegations would be dismissed. Appellant would receive a stipulated sentence of four years, doubled to eight years under the three strikes law, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was already serving. The trial court reviewed the terms of the plea agreement with appellant as well as the consequences of the plea. The court asked appellant if he understood the plea agreement and had any questions. Appellant replied that he understood the terms of the plea agreement and had no questions. Defense counsel told the court that he reviewed the consequences of the plea with appellant as well as appellant’s potential defenses. The court advised appellant of his constitutional rights, which appellant waived pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Appellant further waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.2 Appellant pled guilty to the violation of sections 182, subdivision (a)(1) and 4573.9. Appellant admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. Appellant waived the preparation of a presentence report. The court