People v. White CA5

Filed 9/26/14 P. v. White 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066692 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF10844A) v.

TERRANCE WHITE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Larry A. Errea, Judge. Carol Foster and 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 Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Chittick, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2012, a criminal complaint was filed charging appellant Terrance White with possession of a weapon while in prison custody (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)).1 The complaint also alleged that appellant had three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j) & 1170.12, subds. (a)- (e)) and three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 20, 2012, appellant entered into a plea agreement. Appellant initialed and executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form acknowledging and waiving his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.2 Appellant also acknowledged the consequences of his plea. In exchange for appellant’s admission of the offense and one prior serious felony conviction, the remaining allegations would be dismissed. Under the plea agreement, the court would sentence appellant to a term of four years that would be doubled to eight years pursuant to the three strikes law. During the change of plea hearing, defense counsel stated for the record that there had been a conference concerning the plea agreement in chambers. Because appellant was showing a decreasing level of violence, appellant’s past history included the use of narcotics, and there had been a passage of 18 years since those past events, the trial court would exercise its discretion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The trial court asked appellant if he had an opportunity to review his constitutional rights and other advisements in the plea form. Appellant replied affirmatively. The court asked appellant if any other promises had been made to him for his change of plea other than those set forth in the plea form. Appellant replied, “No.” The court asked appellant if he had any questions to ask the court or his attorney. Appellant again replied, “No.” Appellant indicated he was willing to waive his rights. Counsel for