People v. Trotter CA3

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 2021 No. C089651Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's judgment and sentence, finding no merit in his claims regarding custody credit calculations, ineffective assistance of counsel, or the propriety of his resentencing proceedings.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its calculation of custody credits for the defendant's arson conviction.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea negotiations and sentencing.
Whether the defendant's absence at the resentencing proceeding constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s arguments lack merit.”

“Accordingly, defendant’s arson conviction limited his section 4019 credit accrual to 15 percent, as the trial court correctly told him.”

“But any error was harmless, as the trial court reduced the sentence to correct an illegality and had no discretion to reduce it further.”

Filed 2/26/21 P. v. Trotter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089651

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 15F6649, 16F6839, 16F6958) v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN TROTTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In case No. 15F6649 (case 49), defendant Christopher John Trotter pleaded no contest in September 2015 to a charge of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),1 and the remaining allegations in the case were dismissed.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In October 2015, the trial court ordered 36 months of probation. In April 2016, probation was summarily revoked. Regarding case No. 16F6839 (case 39), in June 2016 defendant was charged with one felony count of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor count of resisting a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). On the same day the charges in case 39 were filed, proceedings were suspended in both case 49 and case 39, because defendant’s attorney stated a doubt that defendant was competent to stand trial (§ 1368). In August 2016, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated proceedings. Later that month, defendant admitted violating probation in case 49, and pleaded no contest to the felony evading count in case 39. In November 2016, the trial court ordered 36 months of probation in case 39, and reinstated probation in case 49. Regarding case No. 16F6958 (case 58), in December 2016 defendant was charged with one felony count of arson (§ 451, subd. (b)). The offense was alleged as a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(14). Also that month, probation in both case 49 and case 39 was summarily revoked, and proceedings were suspended in all three cases pursuant to section 1368. In October 2017, the trial court found defendant competent and proceedings in all three cases were reinstated. In January 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to the arson charge in case 58 and admitted violating probation in the other two cases. At a hearing in March 2018, in case 39 and case 49, the trial court imposed consecutive eight-month terms in state prison (but suspended execution of those prison terms) and reinstated probation for terms of 36 months. In case 58, the trial court

People v. Trotter CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C089651

CHRISTOPHER JOHN TROTTER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief