People v. Dozier CA3

Filed 3/7/16 P. v. Dozier CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078630

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF 14-297, CRF 14-364) v.

RODNEY KEVIN DOZIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a plea bargain, defendant Rodney Kevin Dozier challenges the imposed sentence, arguing the trial court breached the negotiated plea agreement by requiring a six-month residential treatment program. We agree and strike the offending requirement.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In exchange for dismissing various charges, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts in two separate cases: sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,

1

§ 11360, subd. (a); case No. CRF 14-297) and receipt of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); case No. CRF 14-364). The parties stipulated to a split sentence: the upper term of four years for the marijuana count, to be served on mandatory supervision, and eight months for receipt of stolen property, to be served in county jail.

At sentencing, the parties raised the possibility of defendant completing a six- month residential treatment program in lieu of the eight-month jail term. The prosecution explained: “[T]he plan right now is he is doing eight months in the county jail and then going on mandatory supervision. If he has a program, we would have no objection to him going into a program and being released on mandatory supervision for the completion of that program in lieu of the eight months. If he doesn’t, obviously, then he knows where he is going and what he is doing.”

The court, noting that probation had openings at some programs, asked defendant to enroll in a program by the time of sentencing: “So if that is what you are going to do, we need to have it in place at the time we sentence you.” Defendant replied, “Okay,” and the court agreed to “go along with counsel’s agreement on what the sentence will be . . . .” The court later reiterated: “And if you want that program, I’m going to order it at judgment and sentencing, so make sure we have that.”