People v. Hall CA3

Filed 1/28/15 P. v. Hall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076466

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF0229578)

v.

DAVID SCOTT HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2002, defendant David Scott Hall, having been charged with felony sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4; further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated), entered a negotiated plea of no contest to misdemeanor sexual battery and was placed on one year of summary probation. In February 2014, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis requesting his plea be set aside because he had not been advised that misdemeanor sexual battery was subject to lifetime sex offender registration pursuant to section 290. The trial court denied the petition.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his coram nobis petition. We affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

At defendant’s December 2002 change of plea hearing, the trial court informed him that he would be placed on probation with no additional jail time if he pleaded to misdemeanor sexual battery. After obtaining defendant’s waiver of his constitutional rights, the trial court asked defendant, “You heard me indicate what the consequences would be that I would place you on probation, and you heard me indicate the terms of that probation. Do you understand the consequences of this plea?” Defendant replied that he did, and the court took his no contest plea. According to the coram nobis petition filed on February 4, 2014, defendant later violated his probation on the misdemeanor case and felony probation in another case and was sentenced to six years in state prison. The petition further alleged that upon his release on parole, defendant was informed that he was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290 for the misdemeanor sexual battery conviction. Defendant alleged that he “immediately took steps to clarify and to correct this error, including requesting the trial court to place the matter on calendar and address the issue. However, no action was ever take[n].” In a supplemental brief in support of the petition, defendant alleged that neither court nor counsel advised him that he would be subject to sex offender registration as a result of the plea. Defendant further alleged that no one informed him of the sex offender registration requirement until he was released on parole on September 24, 2006. The supplemental brief further alleged that defendant tried to rectify the matter with his parole agent, who requested a certified copy of the abstract of judgment to determine whether sex offender registration was ordered and required. The letter, which was appended to the supplemental brief, declared that defendant “was not required to