People v. Alexander

California Court of Appeal Jan 16, 2015 No. B256482Published

Before: Kriegler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who repudiates a plea agreement by refusing to participate in the bargained-for drug court program cannot claim the sentence imposed upon his subsequent conviction is illegal or demand to withdraw his plea.

Issues

Whether a defendant may withdraw a plea of no contest after refusing to comply with the terms of the plea agreement.
Whether a trial court errs by imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum after the defendant repudiates the plea agreement.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The only reason defendant did not receive the disposition bargained for is his own refusal to cooperate.”

“A defendant’s manipulative conduct does not constitute good cause to withdraw a plea.”

“The purpose of a trial court is not to satisfy the whims of parties who refuse to comply with the very bargains they accept.”

1/16/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256482

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA088935) v.

RICKEY LANE ALEXANDER, II,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie Brown, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nathan Guttman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________

Defendant and appellant Rickey Lane Alexander, II, appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350)1 following his plea of no contest. Defendant contends that the 16 month county jail sentence ultimately imposed by the trial court is illegal because his punishment was in excess of the plea agreement. Defendant requests that we reverse the judgment and order him “returned to the status quo ante prior to the sentencing, and if the court cannot fashion a sentence that meets [defendant’s] approval, to allow [defendant] to withdraw from the plea.” We affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

A felony complaint charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378 [count 1]), and possession of oxycodone for sale (§ 11351 [count 2]). He pled not guilty on both counts. Defendant’s case was transferred to drug court for evaluation. The possession for sale charges disqualified defendant from drug court, so the case was transferred back to trial court. Once returned to the trial court, defendant entered into a plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead no contest to a violation of section 11350, subdivision (a).3 In return for the plea, defendant would be referred to drug court, and the possession for sale

People v. Alexander

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256482

RICKEY LANE ALEXANDER, II,

PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

KRIEGLER, J.

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.

AI Brief