People v. Milward CA3

Filed 6/30/15 P. v. Milward CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, C076534

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CH030375)

v.

GEORGE ANTHONY MILWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant George Anthony Milward guilty of possession of a sharp instrument while an inmate at a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a))1 and found true the allegations that defendant had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1192.7). The trial court sentenced him to a consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant contends the judgment should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in pretrial plea negotiations and at sentencing. On the record before us, we find defendant has failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not relevant to this appeal. It suffices to say that the jury found him guilty as set forth above. Before his sentencing, defendant asked the trial court to strike one of his prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). In that motion, defendant’s counsel argued defendant had rejected an initial plea offer of four years in prison, consecutive to the life terms he was already serving. Without evidentiary support, defendant’s counsel wrote: “A very reasonable offer was made to resolve this matter. However, it was rejected. At the time, counsel believed that [defendant] faced a maximum sentence of eight years. Upon review to [sic] the probation report, it came to the attention of all parties . . . that . . . a sentence of twenty-five to life was mandated.” Defendant’s probation report indicated that in addition to juvenile adjudications for petty theft, grand theft auto, and obstructing or resisting a public officer, defendant was convicted of first degree and second degree murder in 1993 in Riverside County and of assault by a life prisoner in 1993 in Sacramento County. (This description was slightly incorrect, as we describe post.) At the sentencing hearing, the trial court recounted defendant’s criminal history as including two murder convictions in 1993, and that while he was serving a life sentence he assaulted another inmate, for which he was sentenced to life yet again. The trial court also indicated the mandated sentence of 25 years to life seemed harsh for a weapon possession, but recognized that it was required in light of defendant’s multiple prior strike convictions. Based on its understanding of defendant’s criminal history, the trial court