People v. Ogamba CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 12, 2015 No. F067164Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the separation of powers doctrine by imposing reasonable time constraints on plea negotiations during jury selection.

Issues

Did the trial court's refusal to allow plea negotiations during jury selection violate the separation of powers doctrine?
Did the trial court's time constraints on plea negotiations violate the defendant's right to due process or a fair trial?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s refusal to permit further negotiating time did not encroach upon the prosecution’s sole authority to charge offenses or engage in negotiations with the defense.”

“We do not find this to be an unreasonable, irrational, or arbitrary time constraint warranting appellate relief”

Filed 6/12/15 P. v. Ogamba 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F067164 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. MCR038709, v. MCR041245)

JAY MICHAEL OGAMBA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. James F. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION Defendant argues that his state and federal rights were violated by the trial court’s refusal to allow plea negotiations to continue during jury selection. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.

FACTS On November 30, 2012, defendant was charged with burglarizing an inhabited dwelling (count 1; Pen. Code1, § 459), possessing methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), transporting methamphetamine (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), receiving of stolen property (count 4; § 496, subd. (a)), resisting arrest (count 5; § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and falsely identifying himself to a peace officer (count 6; § 148.9, subd. (a)). The information also alleged as to count 2 that the offense was committed while defendant was on bail (§ 12022.1), and as to counts 1 through 4 that defendant had three prior conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Prior to trial, defendant pled guilty to counts 3, 4, and 6. Defendant’s first jury trial on the remaining counts began on February 19, 2013, but ended in a mistrial. On February 26, 2013, during jury selection for defendant’s second trial, the following exchange took place between the attorneys and the trial court:

“THE COURT: Is there anything we need to address before we bring in the panel?

People v. Ogamba CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief