People v. Bobo CA3

Filed 1/25/16 P. v. Bobo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079766

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF152355)

JOSEPH BOBO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Bobo asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant also filed a supplemental brief. Based on our review of the record and defendant’s supplemental brief, we reject defendant’s claim that he should have been sentenced to a 70 percent - 30 percent split sentence rather than the 50-50 split sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. However, we will modify the judgment to impose a mandatory supervision revocation restitution fine, and further direct the trial court to amend and correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the orally imposed judgment (including deletion of items stricken by the trial court) and to reflect the judgment as modified. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

I Yolo County Sheriff’s deputies contacted defendant while he was parked alongside a freeway on-ramp. The deputies smelled marijuana, searched the vehicle, and found cocaine, hashish, and more than 51 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant admitted he possessed the methamphetamine for sale. The trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden motion. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378 -- count 2), and admitted two prior drug convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, in exchange for dismissal of various other charges and allegations and a stipulated split sentence of eight years to be served in “county prison.” The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years on count 2, plus two consecutive three-year terms for the enhancements, for an aggregate sentence of eight years in county prison. The trial court ordered that the sentence was to be served as a split term pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B),1 with four years served in county jail and the remaining four years suspended under mandatory supervision subject to written mandatory supervision conditions. The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $30 restitution collection fee (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee plus a $150 penalty assessment (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court said the drug program fee and penalty assessment were stricken. The trial court awarded defendant 161 days of presentence credit (81 actual days plus 80 conduct days). Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.