People v. Smith CA5

Filed 7/14/16 P. v. Smith CA5 Received for posting 7/15/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F071288 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F12901344, v. F12908195)

CHAD EUGENE SMITH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge. Barbara Ann Smith, 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, Louis M. Vasquez and Gregory B. Wagner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

Appellant Chad Eugene Smith appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea in two cases. Appellant was sentenced under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h),1 and was thus eligible to have a portion of his sentence suspended so that mandatory supervision could be imposed. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5).) Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly disclose the reasons for rejecting mandatory supervision and imposing a “straight-time” sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between April 2012 and October 2013, appellant was accused of criminal conduct in at least four different proceedings. In case No. F12908195 (the 195 case), appellant faced five criminal counts, including three charges for identify theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)/counts 1, 3, 4), and one charge each for commercial burglary (§ 459/count 2) and failing to appear (§ 1320, subd. (b)/count 5). In case No. F12901344 (the 344 case), appellant faced 24 criminal counts, including commercial burglary (§ 459/count 1), forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)/count 3), two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)/counts 6, 10), and 20 counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)/counts 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11- 24). Appellant also faced charges in case Nos. F12910295 (the 295 case) and F12910296 (the 296 case). On October 10, 2013, appellant pled guilty to counts 1, 2, 10, and 24 from the 344 case, and counts 1 and 4 from the 195 case. In exchange, the remaining counts, along with all charges in the 295 and 296 cases, were dismissed. Appellant was advised that he could receive up to six years in local custody in the 344 case and up to three years eight months in local custody in the 195 case. However, during those proceedings, the trial court indicated it would consider a total sentence of “4 yrs. 4 months straight time.”