People v. Willis CA3

Filed 2/26/16 P. v. Willis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079510

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F03841)

v.

CORNELL WYLE WILLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

In 1990, defendant Cornell Wyle Willis pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and received five years of formal probation, including 270 days in county jail with 17 days’ credit for time served.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In 2014, defendant pleaded guilty or no contest (the record does not describe which) to possession of a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) In April 2014, the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison (the two-year midterm, doubled for his prior strike), with 389 days of presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a $280 suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.45). The underlying facts of defendant’s convictions are not in the record.

On May 20, 2015, defendant submitted an ex parte motion for modification of sentence (§ 1170, subd. (d)), falsely alleging that his 2014 conviction was for simple possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), which was reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.

On May 27, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that since defendant’s sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea, the court had no authority to modify the sentence.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying the motion. The notice of appeal also purported to challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, the voluntariness of defendant’s plea, and a violation of Boykin-Tahl2 (all presumably in the 2014 case).