People v. Carrillo CA2/4

Filed 6/17/15 P. v. Carrillo CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B257835

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA063341) v.

LARRY CARRILLO, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerard A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________

INTRODUCTION Larry Carrillo, Jr. appeals from a judgment and sentence, following his plea to possession of methamphetamine. He contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to consider him for the deferred entry of 1 judgment program (DEJ), Penal Code section 1000 et seq. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion and consider Carrillo’s suitability for DEJ.

2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 20, 2014, appellant was charged in a felony complaint with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)(1); count 2). Later that same day, appellant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (count 1) pursuant to Proposition 36, section 1210 et seq. After the court (Judge Steven D. Ogden) accepted the plea, defense counsel asked the court to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor because appellant had only one prior conviction. The court replied, “I don’t reduce Prop. 36’s to misdemeanors. DEJ yes, not Prop. 36.” Counsel stated, “There would be an affidavit.” The court then said, “Fine. It will go to [Department] A20.” After defense counsel noted that appellant had “a favorable [Own Recognizance] O.R. report,” the court released appellant on his own recognizance and continued the matter to July 1 in Department A20.