People v. Bond CA1/2

Filed 9/29/15 P. v. Bond CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143773 v. WILLIAM ANTHONY BOND, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR935117) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant William Anthony Bond, was on June 19, 2014, charged by information with transportation of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379, subd. (a), 11378, 11377, subd. (a).)1 The information also alleged appellant had served two prior prison terms. On July 8, 2014 appellant entered a plea of not guilty. On September 24, 2014, after appellant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained during a traffic stop had been denied, appellant pled no contest to transporting methamphetamine in violation of section 11379, subdivision (a), and admitted one prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed. On December 6, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to the upper term of four years, plus a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term, for a total sentence of five years. The clerk’s minute order dated December 9, 2014, states that appellant was

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

directed to comply with the narcotic offender registration requirement authorized by section 11590, although no such requirement was orally imposed at the sentencing hearing. The minute order also erroneously stated that appellant pled guilty to violation of subdivision (a) of section 11397, rather than section 11379, which describes the offense to which he actually pled guilty. Additionally, the clerk’s minutes attributed the total 516 days of presentence credits awarded appellant only to custody and conduct credits, erroneously failing to attribute 129 days of the total 516 days to work credit. Timely notice of this appeal was filed on December 12, 2014. Appellant, who does not challenge the validity of his plea, raises two related issues pertaining only to the sentence imposed on the basis of the plea: namely, that (1) the narcotic offender registration requirement must be stricken because it is not applicable to violation of section 11379, subdivision (a), even apart from the fact the trial court did not orally impose that requirement at sentencing, and (2) the court’s minute order must be corrected to indicate appellant was convicted of violation of section 11379, subdivision (a), and accurately set forth the calculation of presentence credits. The Attorney General agrees with both contentions, as we do, and we shall therefore affirm the judgment with the necessary modifications. Because the issues presented are unrelated to the facts of the case—which were elicited only in connection with the motion to suppress, because there was no preliminary hearing or trial—it is unnecessary to describe them at length. It suffices to note that when the court asked for a factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor stated, and appellant agreed, to the following representation: “On March 27, 2014, law enforcement deputy sheriff Aaron Clark conducted a traffic stop of . . . the vehicle the defendant was driving, on Highway 29. That was in Lake County. The defendant had approximately 20 grams of methamphetamine on his person. The methamphetamine being transported was for purposes of sale and was in a usable amount of methamphetamine.”