People v. Coleman CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 2016 No. C079299Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation following the defendant's admission of a violation, and that the retroactive amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11379 did not apply because the defendant's conviction became final before the amendment's effective date.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by revoking probation and ordering execution of the suspended sentence?
Does the amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11379 apply retroactively to a defendant whose conviction became final prior to the amendment's effective date?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the circumstances presented, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation and imposing the previously imposed but suspended sentence of seven years eight months in prison.”

“We conclude that the rule of retroactivity established in Estrada does not apply. While there is no savings clause in the amendments to Health and Safety Code section 11379, defendant’s conviction for transportation of methamphetamine became final”

Filed 7/18/16 P. v. Coleman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079299

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. NCR78898, NCR79248, NCR80183, v. NCR80240)

LUKEUS NATHAN COLEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following defendant Lukeus Nathan Coleman’s no contest plea to multiple charges in 2011, the trial court sentenced him to seven years eight months in prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed him on probation for a period of three years. In 2015, defendant admitted to a probation violation and the trial court revoked his probation and ordered execution of the previously imposed but suspended sentence. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his

probation and ordering execution of the sentence. He further contends that his conviction for transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) must be reversed and remanded in light of the recent amendments to Health and Safety Code section 11379. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND1 In 2010, four cases were filed against defendant in the Tehama County Superior Court. In case No. NCR78898, defendant was charged with one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)).2 In case No. NCR79248, defendant was charged with three counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); counts I-III), one count of possession of a destructive device (former § 12303; count IV), one count of possession of a destructive device in and near a private habitation and other public place ordinarily passed by human beings (former § 12303.2; count V), one count of possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)); count VI), and one count of possession of an explosive device (Health & Saf. Code, § 12305; count VII). In case No. NCR80183, defendant was charged with one count of transportation of a controlled substance—methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). In case No. NCR80240, defendant was charged with one count of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a); count I), and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (b); count II). On February 3, 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to counts I through III and VII in case No. NCR79248, count I in case No. NCR78898, count I in case No. NCR80183, and counts I and II in case No. NCR80240. He also admitted the special allegations

People v. Coleman CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C079299

LUKEUS NATHAN COLEMAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

HULL , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief