People v. Kinney CA2/5

Filed 5/2/14 P. v. Kinney CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B250044

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA060789) v.

JUAN DEVON KINNEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jack P. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Jerome J. Haig, Jerome J. Haig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Juan Devon Kinney pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) and one count of possession of a smoking device in violation of Health and Safety section 11364, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. On February 25, 2003, appellant was granted a deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.2 in lieu of formal probation. On August 25, 2003, the probation department informed the court that appellant had been expelled from his drug treatment program and had been arrested for battery, and so was not in compliance with the terms of his deferred entry. The court terminated appellant’s grant of deferred entry, reinstated criminal proceedings and issued a warrant for appellant’s arrest. About ten years later, on April 30, 2013, appellant appeared on the bench warrant. On May 22, 2013, appellant admitted his violation. A sentencing hearing followed. Counsel for appellant told the court she believed appellant had “extra credits on the ten- year sentence imposed in another case in San Bernardino. The trial court pointed out that the custody was not related to this case. Appellant had previously told counsel that he wanted to be sentenced immediately, without pursuing the time credit issues. Appellant was sentenced to the mid-term of two years in state prison. Thereafter, appellant was transferred in custody to Ohio for outstanding warrants.