People v. Mitchell CA2/8

Filed 6/6/14 P. v. Mitchell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B250114

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA046437) v.

JAMES RAY MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Bernie C. La Forteza, Judge. Affirmed.

Kenneth J. Sargoy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

In July 2009, appellant James Ray Mitchell was arrested during a traffic stop for possession of cocaine base and giving false information to a police officer. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, and, upon appellant’s request, the court ordered the sheriff’s department to provide to defense counsel a “split” of the alleged cocaine base for forensic testing. Appellant subsequently entered into a plea bargain in which he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base and to suffering seven prior convictions. The court imposed a ten year prison sentence, consisting of an upper base term of three years and seven additional one-year terms for his prior convictions. The court then suspended the sentence and placed appellant on four-years’ formal probation. In placing appellant on probation, the court announced that “Defendant is advised that any violation of probation, no matter how technical, will result in the imposition of the suspended state prison sentence.” In July 2010, appellant appeared in court for a hearing on his alleged multiple violations of the Vehicle Code, including driving with a suspended license. The hearing was continued to permit appellant to retain private counsel, and in the interim appellant was released on his own recognizance. The probation violation hearing was continued several times, but when appellant failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in November 2010, the court issued a bench warrant. On December 22, 2010, appellant was arrested during a traffic stop. The deputies took appellant into custody after pulling over the car in which he was a passenger when he jumped out of the car and tried to run away, disobeying the deputies’ order that he stop. On January 21, 2011, appellant waived his right to a hearing on his probation violations involving the Vehicle Code. He admitted the violations, and the court ordered him to serve one year in county jail. With credit for his one month of then-confinement, appellant’s release date was set for December 21, 2011, at which time he was to be reinstated to probation. While in county jail, appellant sent a letter in February 2011 to the court. His letter asserted the forensic lab had fabricated its test results showing he had possessed