People v. Clark CA2/7

Filed 1/13/16 P. v. Clark CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B264903

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA433073) v.

KATHLEEN CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Veals, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People charged Kathleen Clark in an information with one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and one count of grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1)). Against her attorney’s advice, Clark entered a negotiated plea of no contest to carjacking.1 In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Clark to the middle term of five years, suspended execution of sentence, and placed Clark on five years of formal probation on condition she serve 365 days in county jail. The court imposed statutory fines, fees, and assessments, and awarded Clark 168 days of presentence custody credit (84 actual days and 84 days of conduct credit). At the time Clark entered her plea, the court advised Clark of her constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which Clark stated she understood. Counsel for Clark joined in the waivers of Clark’s constitutional rights and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The trial court found a factual basis for the plea and that Clark’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Clark timely filed a notice of appeal purportedly limited to issues arising “after the entry of the plea, which do not challenge the validity of her plea,” including Clark’s specific argument that “she was misadvised as to the consequences of her plea.” Clark did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.