People v. Woods CA1/5

Filed 10/23/14 P. v. Woods CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142010 v. MELVIN WOODS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C164426) Defendant and Appellant.

Melvin Woods appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for discharge from imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), or our review pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). We find no arguable issue and dismiss the appeal. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 19, 2010, pursuant to a plea bargain, Woods entered a no contest plea to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) 1 and admitted a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667, subd. (e)(1)). Woods agreed to a sentence of six years in state prison.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On October 5, 2010, the court imposed the negotiated sentence of six years, comprised of the middle term of three years for the second degree robbery offense, doubled to account for the prior strike conviction. The abstract of judgment, filed on October 19, 2010, indicated that Woods was sentenced as a second strike offender under section 667 or 1170.12, but it listed the total prison time to be three years, rather than three years doubled under the Three Strikes Law to six. By letter dated May 30, 2013, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation informed the trial court that the abstract of judgment might be erroneous or incomplete, since it indicated a three-year sentence instead of a six-year sentence. On June 18, 2013, the court issued an amended minute order and an amended abstract of judgment, both showing a total term of six years. On March 11, 2014, Woods filed a motion in pro per, captioned: “Notice and Notice of Motion after Judgment Imposed for Defendant to be Discharged from Imprisonment Pursuant to 3-Years Imposed as Reflected in the Abstract of Judgment Dated on 10/5/2010.” Woods asked the court to enforce the three-year prison term set forth in the October 2010 abstract of judgment, noting he had originally been given a release date of May 25, 2013, and requesting his immediate release. Woods acknowledged, however, that the plea agreement had called for the doubling of the three- year term. On April 24, 2014, the trial court denied Woods’s motion in a minute order, as follows: “Defendant’s ex parte motion, filed March 11, 2014, requesting that he be discharged is hereby DENIED. [¶] Defendant requests that he be discharged under the terms of the October 2010[] abstract of judgment which indicates that he was sentenced to 3 years. However, on August 19, 2010, Defendant plead[ed] guilty to second degree robbery and admitted to one strike prior.[2] On October 5, 2010, Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of 3 years which was doubled pursuant to Penal Code