People v. Ewers CA2/4

Filed 6/20/14 P. v. Ewers CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249956

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA094004) v.

JAMILLE JAVADO EWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith Levey Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Ari Dybnis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Erika D. Jackson, and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

INTRODUCTION Jamille Javado Ewers appeals from a judgment and sentence, following a plea of no contest to three counts of residential burglary. He contends the trial court breached the plea agreement by refusing to provide him with a full and complete sentencing hearing. He further contends the court erred by imposing a 10-year gang enhancement not supported by the evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. FACTUAL BAKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In an amended felony complaint filed December 6, 2012, appellant and a codefendant were charged with three counts of first degree residential burglary 1 (Pen. Code, § 459). All crimes were alleged to be serious felonies within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c), and two counts were alleged to be violent felonies within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c) because a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence during the commission of the offense. It was also alleged that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B) & (C)). Appellant pled not guilty to all counts and denied the allegations. On January 23, 2013, the date set for the preliminary hearing, the trial court made an “open-plea offer.” The court stated that if appellant were willing to say he “did the crimes, and . . . did it with all the allegations involved and everything,” the court would put the matter over to a sentencing hearing, to determine any aggravating or mitigating factors and the particular sentence that would be imposed. The court noted that the People had made an offer of 15 years, four 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.