People v. Ford CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 28, 2015 No. C077721Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's plea agreement was not violated when he was found ineligible for the drug court program, as the agreement explicitly stated there were no guarantees of eligibility and prohibited withdrawal of the plea upon such a finding. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to a lack of evidence in the record regarding counsel's advice or tactical decisions.

Issues

Whether the defendant's plea agreement was violated when he was found ineligible for the drug court program.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the drug court requirements and the sentencing proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant may not withdraw plea if found ineligible/unsuitable for drug court.”

“When defendant entered into the plea agreement, he was informed that there were no guarantees that the Agency would find him eligible for the program.”

“We cannot find counsel ineffective based on speculation.”

Filed 10/28/15 P. v. Ford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077721

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. NCR87147, NCR88743, NCR90533, v. NCR90759)

JUSTIN FRED FORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Justin Fred Ford entered into a plea bargain, pleading guilty to second degree burglary, failure to appear, and taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 1320, subd. (b); Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)1 Defendant also agreed to a felony drug court referral. Subsequently, the Tehama County Health Services Agency (Agency) determined that defendant did not meet the criteria for the program. The trial court ultimately sentenced defendant to seven years’ incarceration.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.

Defendant appeals, contending his plea bargain was violated when he was found ineligible for the drug court program and he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Defendant also argues counsel performed ineffectively. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2014 four separate informations were filed against defendant. The Charges The information filed in case No. NCR87147 alleged three counts of commercial burglary, one count of elder theft, and misdemeanor access card fraud. (§§ 459, 368, subd. (d), 484g, subd. (b).) The parties stipulated the factual basis for the charges is contained in the sheriff’s department report. The report states that defendant made eight transactions on a friend’s ATM card without permission. The information filed in case No. NCR88743 alleged failure to appear. (§ 1320, subd. (b).) The information further alleged defendant committed the crime while free on bail within the meaning of section 12022.1. The information filed in case No. NCR90533 also alleged one count of failure to appear. (§ 1320, subd. (b).) The information again alleged the underlying crime had been committed while defendant was free on bail within the meaning of section 12022.1. Finally, the information filed in case No. NCR90759 alleged defendant had unlawfully taken or driven a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). The parties stipulated the charge was based on the California Highway Patrol report that states defendant was allowed to drive a friend’s vehicle but failed to return it as agreed. The Plea Bargain As part of a plea bargain arrangement, defendant entered the following guilty pleas: (1) in case No. NCR87147, a plea of guilty to one count of second degree burglary; (2) in case No. NCR88743, a plea of guilty to failure to appear; (3) in case No. NCR90533, a plea of guilty to failure to appear; and (4) in case No. NCR90759, a

People v. Ford CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C077721

JUSTIN FRED FORD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

MAURO , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief