People v. Cardenas CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 9, 2014 No. C075826Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to presentence custody credit for time served on a separate, dismissed case because that custody was not attributable to the conduct for which he was convicted. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to a $1,000 fine by failing to object at trial, as the fine was legally permissible under Penal Code section 672 despite the trial court's erroneous citation of Health and Safety Code section 11350.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to presentence custody credit for time served on a dismissed case when the conduct in that case provided evidence for the conviction in the primary case.
Whether the imposition of a $1,000 fine, cited under an incorrect statute, constitutes an unauthorized sentence that may be challenged on appeal despite a failure to object at trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that the contents of the cell phone searched on September 12 provided additional evidence of defendant’s morphine sales does not transform the later case into conduct attributable to the earlier.”

“Although the court improperly identified section 11350 as the statutory basis for the fine, the fine could have been imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 672.”

“Thus the error was subject to the forfeiture rule, and defendant’s failure to object in the trial court forfeits his challenge on appeal.”

Filed 12/9/14 P. v. Cardenas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075826

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F06005)

ANTHONY STEVEN CARDENAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the no contest plea of defendant Anthony Steven Cardenas to possession of morphine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351),1 the trial court sentenced him to the stipulated term of 365 days in county jail in case No. 13F06005 (the morphine case), dismissed case No. 13F06003, awarded him four days of presentence custody credits, and imposed a $1,000 fine under section 11350. On appeal, defendant contends:

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

(1) he should receive additional presentence custody credits for the time he was in custody on the dismissed case; and (2) the $1,000 fine was unauthorized and must be stricken. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On September 11, 2013, Elk Grove Police officers conducted a traffic stop of defendant’s car, seizing $530 and a cell phone from defendant. An inventory search revealed three prescription bottles with 55 pills, five of which were morphine. Only one bottle was prescribed to defendant. Defendant did not give the officers his password for the cell phone. Defendant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, resulting in the morphine case. (§§ 11350, subd. (a), 11375, subd. (b)(2).) He posted bail and was released from custody. The following day, officers executed a search warrant at defendant’s home. The officers found 36.42 grams of methamphetamine, 2.26 grams of marijuana, two bottles of cutting agents, three digital scales, a cell phone, packaging material, and two rounds of nine-millimeter ammunition. An examination of the cell phone found during the residential search revealed outgoing text messages indicating narcotics sales of morphine and other prescription drugs. Officers arrested defendant for possession of methamphetamine and booked him into county jail in case No. 13F06003 (the methamphetamine case). Defendant remained in custody on the methamphetamine case from September 12, 2013, until October 1, 2013, when the trial court exonerated bail and released defendant on his own recognizance. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to amend count one in the morphine case from possession of a controlled substance to possession of morphine for sale. (§ 11351.) Defendant pled no contest to the amended count one in the morphine case. In accordance with the plea, the trial court dismissed the remaining counts in both cases, including the methamphetamine case in its entirety, and sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 365 days in county jail. The trial court denied defendant’s request for

People v. Cardenas CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C075826

ANTHONY STEVEN CARDENAS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DUARTE , J.

MAURO , J.

AI Brief