People v. Wilson CA1/3

Filed 9/20/16 P. v. Wilson CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144630 v. DARRYEAL WOODROW WILSON, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR172595) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Darryeal Woodrow Wilson was sentenced to serve 2 years 8 months in state prison after he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction. We reject this contention and shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted in 2003 of three counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years of age. (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to serve 14 years in state prison. His conviction requires him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. Defendant was released from prison on July 19, 2014. He was advised at the time that he was required to register as a sex offender within five business days of his release. Defendant initially refused to sign a form acknowledging the registration requirement but

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

eventually did so after being informed that he would otherwise be arrested for a parole violation. He wrote on the form that he signed it “ ‘under duress.’ ” The day following his release, parole authorities transported defendant to Napa County. He was arrested in early August 2014 after he reported to his parole officer and it was discovered that he had not registered as a sex offender within the required five-day period. In a three-count amended information, the Napa County District Attorney charged defendant with three variations of failure to register as a sex offender: (1) failure to register after a change of address (§ 290, subd. (b)), (2) failure to register as a transient upon release from prison (§ 290.011, subd. (a)), and (3) failure to register upon release from prison (§ 290.015, subd. (a)). The district attorney further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to a felony violation of failure to register after an address change and admitted the allegation that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. In exchange for the plea, it was agreed that defendant would be sentenced to no more than four years in state prison and would be eligible for probation if the court agreed to dismiss the prior strike. Defendant filed a motion inviting the court to exercise its discretion and dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to section 1385. The court denied the motion and proceeded to sentence defendant to the lower term of 16 months for failing to register as a sex offender after an address change. (§ 290.018, subd. (b).) Because defendant had suffered a prior strike, the court doubled the sentence to 2 years 8 months. (§ 667, subd. (e)(1).) This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in declining to exercise its discretion to dismiss his prior strike. As we explain, we find no error.