People v. Hess CA5

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Hess 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080204 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF013005A) v.

KEITH MICHAEL HESS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie, Judge. James E. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 19, 2018, a complaint was filed, charging Keith Michael Hess (defendant) with unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2).2 On December 11, 2018, defendant was advised of, and waived, his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.3 He was advised of the consequences of pleading guilty or no contest to count 1, including that his maximum confinement time was three years, but, pursuant to the plea agreement, he would receive three years’ probation and up to 180 days in custody with a referral to the Work Release Program; be subject to certain monetary obligations; and that count 2 and two other pending cases would be dismissed with a Harvey waiver.4 Counsel stipulated that the offense reports furnished a factual basis for the plea. Defendant pled no contest to count 1. The remaining count and other cases were dismissed with a Harvey waiver, on condition that the plea remained in full force and effect. In addition, defendant entered an Arbuckle waiver with respect to sentencing.5 On February 8, 2019, imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation on various terms and conditions, including that he spend 180 days in

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 The remaining four counts of the complaint pertained to a codefendant and are not pertinent to this appeal. Defendant’s possession of a firearm and ammunition were alleged to be unlawful based on his prior felony conviction of a drug offense. That offense was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) and (b), prior to the filing of the instant complaint. Reduction of the offense did not reinstate defendant’s right to possess a firearm or prevent his conviction under section 29800 et seq. (§ 1170.18, subd. (k).) 3 Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. 4 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. 5 People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749.