People v. Culp CA5

Filed 3/17/15 P. v. Culp 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068584 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Kern Super. Ct. No. BF142707A) v.

MICHAEL WAYNE CULP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Thomas S. Clark, Judge. Audrey Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Marcia A. Fay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION This case presents a straightforward question of statutory interpretation: Does Penal Code section 181 apply to state prison terms imposed for attempted extortion pursuant to section 524? We conclude that it does and reject defendant’s argument to the contrary. As a result, we will affirm the judgment while ordering one minor change to the abstract of judgment. BACKGROUND There was evidence adduced at trial that defendant and several accomplices kidnapped a man and attempted to extort $50,000 from his boss.2 Defendant, who had been charged with several crimes, was only convicted of one: A lesser included offense of attempted extortion. The court sentenced defendant to a total of six years in prison: Three years on the attempted extortion conviction, which was doubled due to defendant’s prior strike. (§ 667, subd. (e).) Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is not authorized by the relevant statutes. DISCUSSION I. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND Defendant argues that his six-year prison term was impermissibly long because attempted extortion is only punishable by a prison term of one year or less. (§ 524.) Even if that maximum term is doubled for defendant’s prior strike, the maximum sentence becomes two years. Thus, he contends his six-year term is unauthorized.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 “Since appellant raises only sentencing issues in this appeal, we need not recite the facts of the underlying charge.” (People v. Logsdon (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 338, 341.)