People v. Newbolds CA1/5

Filed 9/24/21 P. v. Newbolds CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A160484 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Mendocino County MICHAEL JAMES NEWBOLDS, Super. Ct. Nos. SCUK-CRCR-18- Defendant and Appellant. 95447, SCUK-CRCR-19-30027, SCUK-CRCR-20-33920)

Michael Newbolds appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest in three different criminal cases. He contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to strike his prior strikes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). We will reject this argument and affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Case Numbers 18-95477 & 19-30027 Appellant was arrested in August 2018 for having approximately 14 grams of methamphetamine on his person while in close proximity to a scale and a plastic bag. Based on these facts, and as relevant here, a complaint

1

was filed in case number 18-95477 alleging appellant possessed a controlled substance for purposes of sale. (Health & Saf. Code1, § 11378.) Appellant failed to appear at his preliminary hearing. Therefore in early January 2019, the Mendocino County District Attorney filed two complaints against appellant. The first was an amendment in case number 18-95477. It added an allegation that appellant had suffered one prior strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667.) The second, in case number 19-30027, was a new action. As is relevant here, it alleged appellant failed to appear after being released on his own recognizance. (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b).) Appellant pled no contest in both cases and the trial court sentenced him in February 2019. Pursuant to a global disposition, the court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years. As part of appellant’s plea agreement, the court declined to sentence him on the strike allegation so he would have the opportunity to rehabilitate himself. B. Case Number 20-99320 In June of 2019, the probation department filed a petition alleging appellant had violated his probation. The trial court revoked appellant’s probation and the police placed him under arrest. During the arrest, officers found seven grams of methamphetamine on appellant’s person and 2 ounces of methamphetamine in his vehicle. Appellant told the officers he was delivering the larger amount to an associate in Willits. Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with possessing a controlled substance for purposes of sale. (§ 11378.) As is