People v. Cadwallader CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 8, 2014 No. C075146Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences but remanded the matter for the trial court to resolve discrepancies between the oral sentencing pronouncement and the abstract of judgment regarding fines, fees, and victim restitution.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its sentencing pronouncement and the resulting abstract of judgment regarding the calculation and identification of fines, fees, and assessments.
Whether the trial court failed to provide a sufficiently detailed recitation of all fees, fines, and penalties on the record.

Disposition. Affirmed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We must remand the matter to the trial court, however, because we cannot resolve the discrepancies between the court’s sentencing statement and the abstract of judgment.”

“Since the fines, fees, and penalties here derive from three different cases, it is imperative on remand that the court spell them out in full.”

Filed 10/8/14 P. v. Cadwallader CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075146

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CM036127, CM039318) v.

VALERIE ANN CADWALLADER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On May 7, 2013, in case No. CM036127, defendant Valerie Ann Cadwallader pleaded no contest to child endangerment (count 1; Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a))1 and driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)); she also admitted the allegation as to count 2 that her blood-alcohol content

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

was 0.15 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23578). All other pending charges were dismissed.2 Defendant was granted four years of probation, including 120 days in jail. On July 29, 2013, in case No. CM039318, a complaint was filed charging defendant with child endangerment (count 1; § 273a, subd. (a)), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 2; § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (count 3; § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). The complaint alleged that defendant was out of custody on a pending felony when those offenses were committed. (§ 12022.1.) On the same date, a petition for violation of probation was filed in case No. CM036127, citing the child endangerment offense. On August 27, 2013, in case No. CM039318, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1 and admitted the out-of-custody enhancement, with the understanding that the remaining charges would be dismissed pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation in case Nos. CM036127 and SCR87272. On October 15, 2013, the trial court denied defendant probation in both cases and sentenced her to an aggregate state prison term of seven years four months, computed as follows: in case No. CM039318, the court sentenced defendant to four years on count 1 plus two years to be served consecutively for the out-of-custody enhancement; in case No. CM036127, the court sentenced defendant to one year four months (one-third the middle term, to run consecutively to the sentence in the other case) on count 1 and a six- month concurrent sentence on count 2. The court awarded defendant 537 days of

People v. Cadwallader CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C075146

VALERIE ANN CADWALLADER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

NICHOLSON , J.

HOCH , J.

AI Brief