People v. Quevedo CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 19, 2021 No. F081346Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a straight term of local custody rather than a split sentence, as the court is presumed to have followed the law and properly considered relevant factors under the Realignment Act.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize the presumption in favor of a split sentence.
Whether the trial court failed to consider relevant criteria for denying mandatory supervision in favor of a straight sentence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We review a trial court’s determination that the interests of justice require imposition of a straight sentence for abuse of discretion.”

“a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.”

“Based on the court’s consideration of relevant factors on the record, we find no abuse of discretion.”

Filed 8/19/21 P. v. Quevedo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081346 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F20901890) v.

LUIS ADAM QUEVEDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. Carolyn D. Phillips, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Daniel B. Bernstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Luis Adam Quevedo pled no contest to unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. He contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a straight term of local custody rather than a split sentence, including mandatory supervision. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On March 11, 2020, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a);1 count 2), misdemeanor possession of burglary tools (§ 466; count 3), misdemeanor reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a); count 4), misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 5), and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 6). On March 17, 2020, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest on count 1 in exchange for dismissal of counts 2 through 6 and a maximum period of incarceration of two years. On May 19, 2020, the trial court sentenced defendant to a two-year term (the middle term) of incarceration in the Fresno County jail (§ 1170, subd. (h)(1)). Defendant was awarded custody credits for 144 days (72 actual; 72 conduct). On June 16, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

People v. Quevedo CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief