People v. Salinas CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 2015 No. F068004Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court's oral misstatement regarding an enhancement on count 2 was an inadvertent error, as the abstract of judgment correctly reflected the plea agreement.

Issues

Whether the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence, which included an enhancement not part of the plea agreement, requires modification of the judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The certified abstract of judgment constitutes the commitment.”

“Because the abstract of judgment accurately reflects the plea agreement, and the plea as accepted by the trial court, we deem the abstract of judgment to be an accurate reflection of the judgment the trial court intended to impose.”

Filed 2/4/15 P. v. Salinas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068004 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF256410A) v.

SELSO SALINAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Selso Salinas pled to two counts of attempted murder, admitted Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C)1 enhancements as to both counts, and admitted a section 12022.55 enhancement as to one count in exchange for dismissal of other charges and enhancements and a maximum sentence of 21 years. Salinas filed a notice of appeal indicating his appeal related to the sentence or other matters not affecting the plea. We review the matter pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 16, 2011, a felony complaint was filed charging Salinas and a codefendant with willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder in counts 1 and 2. Appended to both counts were section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5) and section 12022.53, subdivisions (c), (d) and (e)(1) enhancements. The section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5) enhancement would require that a minimum of 15 years in prison be served before a defendant is eligible for parole; the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement would require the imposition of a consecutive 25 year term of imprisonment. In addition, Salinas was charged in counts 3 and 5 of the complaint with assault with a firearm, in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2). Enhancements pursuant to sections 186.22, subdivision (b)(4), 12022.5, and 12022.55 were alleged as to both counts. On June 7, 2013, Salinas appeared in court with counsel and entered into a plea agreement with the People. Salinas agreed to plead to two counts of attempted murder, without the deliberate and premeditated special allegations, admit the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancements as to both counts, which would call for a 10-year term to be imposed for the enhancement, and admit a section 12022.55 enhancement as to 1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

People v. Salinas CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief