People v. Keeton CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 5, 2016 No. F070339Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's absence from a post-remand hearing did not violate his constitutional or statutory rights because the hearing was not a critical stage of the proceedings and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the defendant's sentence.

Issues

Whether the defendant's absence from a post-remand hearing violated his constitutional or statutory right to be present.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify the defendant's sentence on remand.
Whether the trial court improperly deprived the defendant of the ability to seek withdrawal of his plea.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant did not have a right to be personally present for those proceedings because they were not “critical.””

“The trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant defendant a “better sentence” on the solicitation count on remand.”

“Defendant’s argument that the trial court “deprived” him of the ability to seek withdrawal of his plea is meritless.”

Filed 7/5/16 P. v. Keeton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070339 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Kern Super. Ct. No. BF136484A) v.

JERMALE KEETON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Todd Marshall and Larenda R. Delaini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

FACTS I. Initial Trial Court Proceedings1 Defendant Jermale Keeton (defendant) was charged with solicitation to commit murder (count I – Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (b))2 and active participation in a criminal street gang (count II – § 186.22, subd. (a)). The amended information alleged defendant committed the murder solicitation for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The amended information further alleged defendant has previously been convicted of a felony as defined in sections 667, subdivisions (c) through (j) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e), and previously served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) A jury convicted defendant of active participation in a criminal street gang but was unable to reach a verdict on solicitation. The court declared a mistrial as to the solicitation count. The trial court found the prior conviction and prior prison term allegations as to count II to be true. On February 15, 2012, defendant was sentenced only as to the active participation count and enhancements. Defendant received a prison term of 11 years. On March 2, 2012, a plea form was filed reflecting a plea agreement whereby defendant would plead no contest to the solicitation count, and admit the gang enhancement and the prior conviction. (§ 667, subds. (a) & (e).) Under the agreement, defendant would receive an aggregate 13-year sentence for the solicitation count, the gang enhancement and the prior conviction enhancement. Defendant’s sentence on the active participation count would be stayed under section 654.

People v. Keeton CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JERMALE KEETON, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief