People v. Lamar CA5
Filed 5/23/22 P. v. Lamar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082170, F082243 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F20903958; v. F20902528)
DEVIN TREVONE LAMAR, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. Idiart, Judge. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
INTRODUCTION Appellant Devin Trevone Lamar entered a plea of no contest to two criminal cases pending against him. The factual basis for both pleas was made pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. On appeal, Lamar contends the trial court failed to make sufficient inquiries into the factual basis for his pleas, as is required by Penal Code section 1192.5. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 21, 2020, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information in case No. F20902528 (case No. 2528) charging Lamar with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1), criminal threats (§ 422, count 2), and three counts of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2), counts 3-5). On this same date, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information charging Lamar in case No. F20903958 (case No. 3958) with attempted carjacking (§ 664/215, subd. (a)(1), count 1) and giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), count 2). The information further alleged that during the commission of the crimes, Lamar was released from custody on bail or own his own recognizance (§ 12022.1). On October 6, 2020, pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, Lamar entered a plea of no contest to counts 1 and 3 in case No. 2528. The remaining counts charged were dismissed in view of his plea. In case No. 3958, count 1 was amended to the lesser charge of attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle. Lamar entered a plea of no contest to this charge, and he admitted the on-bail enhancement. Count 2 was dismissed in view of the plea, and the on bail enhancement was stricken. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the pleas was “People v. West.” (People v. West, supra, 3 Cal.3d 595.)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)