People v. Hope CA5

Filed 2/5/16 P. v. Hope CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069874 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF41783) v.

DIANNA ELLEN HOPE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eric L. DuTemple,† and Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judges.‡

C. Athena Roussos, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Peña, J. †Retired judge of the Tuolumne Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to section 6, article VI of the California Constitution. ‡Judge Segerstrompresided over defendant’s change of plea on count II and her trial on the remaining counts. Judge DuTemple sentenced defendant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Dianna Ellen Hope was charged in a first amended information filed on April 7, 2014, with threatening an executive officer from performing his duties, a felony (Pen. Code,1 § 69, count I), felony possession of pepper spray (§ 22810, subd. (a), count II), misdemeanor possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a), count III), and misdemeanor disobeying of a court restraining order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), count IV). The information further alleged defendant had prior convictions for burglary within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court permitted the People to file the amended information alleging three prior convictions for burglary within the meaning of the three strikes law. Prior to a jury trial and with the concurrence of the People, the trial court granted defendant’s motion pursuant to section 995 to have the felony allegation in count II reduced to a misdemeanor, and amended the first amended information by interlineation. After being advised of and waiving her constitutional rights, defendant admitted count II prior to trial and also admitted the alleged prior serious felony convictions. At the conclusion of a jury trial on June 26, 2014, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss counts I and III for insufficient evidence pursuant to section 1118.1. The jury acquitted defendant of count III and convicted her of counts I and IV. On July 21, 2014, the trial court denied defendant’s request to exercise its discretion to strike one or more of the prior serious felony convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count I and doubled the sentence to six years pursuant to the three strikes law. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the two misdemeanor convictions. An amended abstract of judgment was prepared on February 3, 2015, indicating defendant had 27 days of custody credits prior to sentencing, 27 days of conduct credits, and total credits of 54 days.