P. v. Woodward CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2013 No. C070676Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea because the trial court's imposition of a prison sentence upon the defendant's failure to complete a residential treatment program was consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, not a unilateral disapproval of it. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant was not entitled to dual custody credits for time served in another county where he had already received credit for that period.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to withdraw his plea based on the imposition of a prison sentence.
Whether the defendant is entitled to dual custody credits for time served in Placer County that was already credited in a separate proceeding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not disapprove of the plea agreement when it imposed the prison sentence but rather, imposed prison as a consequence of defendant’s termination from the residential treatment program, as provided for by the terms of the plea agreement.”

“Section 2900.5 is not intended to bestow the windfall of duplicative credits against all terms or sentences that are separately imposed in multiple proceedings.”

“Having also undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”

Filed 6/20/13 P. v. Woodward CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070676

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SF10226B, SF11187B, SF11316) v.

GREGORY JAMES NICHOLAS WOODWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal is from three separate cases involving defendant Gregory James Nicholas Woodward. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The first case (SF10226A&B) arose when on June 25, 2010, defendant was discovered in possession of a stolen vehicle. On November 4, 2010, he pled no contest to unlawful taking of a vehicle in exchange for a promise of probation upon the condition he serve up to 365 days in jail and dismissal of four additional drug related charges. On December 27, 2010, he signed a written agreement (entitled “Vargas waiver”1) agreeing

1 The term “Vargas waiver” is derived from the case of People v. Vargas (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1107.

that if he did not appear at the sentencing hearing, the trial court could impose any lawful sentence, even if it was inconsistent with the plea agreement. On May 13, 2011, defendant did not appear and a bench warrant was issued. The next day, May 14, 2011, officers recognized defendant during a traffic stop, searched him, and discovered he was under the influence of a stimulant and in possession of methamphetamine, and acetaminophen/propoxyphene (a schedule IV narcotic pain reliever) without a prescription. Defendant had been a passenger in the vehicle. The vehicle had been stolen. In the second case (SF11187B) defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, two counts of receiving stolen property, two counts of failure to appear, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and unlawful taking of a vehicle. On June 6, 2011, while released on bail and on probation with a condition he not possess any weapons, defendant was found carrying a sword, a metal “SAI” (martial arts weapon consisting of a pointed dagger and prongs), a double-headed axe, 17 knives, and a live round of .25-caliber ammunition. This resulted in the third case. He was charged with illegal possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, with allegations he committed the offense while released on bail, and that he has served a prior prison term. On September 7, 2011, defendant appeared in court on all three cases (as well as several misdemeanor cases) -- on the first case for sentencing, on the second case for change of plea or trial setting, and on the third case for arraignment. Defendant stipulated to having been duly arraigned and said it was his intention to waive preliminary hearing and time for sentencing on the third case. The following summary of the trial court’s and parties’ understanding took place: “THE COURT: So just to put the big picture into play, what I understand based upon our discussions in chambers and in the past many months has led us to this point where after he enters a change of plea in the balance of cases, several various counts and

P. v. Woodward CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C070676

GREGORY JAMES NICHOLAS WOODWARD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ROBIE , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief