People v. Erwin CA3

Filed 5/24/16 P. v. Erwin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C079585

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR105458)

v.

SHANNON ELIZABETH ERWIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Shannon Elizabeth Erwin contends her conviction for transporting methamphetamine should be vacated based upon recent amendments to Health and Safety Code sections 11377 and 11379.1 She also challenges a prior drug conviction enhancement and a section 11590 registration probation requirement. Because

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

defendant’s contentions challenge the validity of her plea and she lacks a certificate of probable cause, we dismiss her appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2010, police found 0.64 grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s car. Defendant pleaded no contest to a single felony count of transporting methamphetamine and admitted a prior drug conviction. (§§ 11379, subd. (a), 11370.2, subd. (c).) In exchange, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years’ Proposition 36 probation, including a condition requiring her to register pursuant to section 11590. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).) In her plea form, defendant specified she understood, as a result of her plea, she would be required to register pursuant to section 11590. Also, the trial court noted as it entered defendant’s plea, “Defendant has acknowledged receiving the information regarding her responsibility to register” pursuant to section 11590. In 2014, defendant admitted to violating probation. The trial court terminated defendant’s Proposition 36 probation and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. In June 2015, defendant moved to vacate her conviction for transporting methamphetamine based on amendments to section 11379. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, reasoning the judgment against defendant was final. Defendant appeals. DISCUSSION When defendant entered her plea, section 11379, subdivision (a) provided “every person who transports . . . any controlled substance . . . shall be punished . . . for a period of two, three, or four years.” (Italics added.) Courts interpreted “transport” in section 11379 to mean any movement of the drug, even for one’s personal use. (See, e.g., People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 134.) But, effective January 1, 2014, the Legislature