People v. Crist CA3

Filed 2/10/23 P. v. Crist CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096231

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CF05622, 21CF05739, 21CM05737 ) v.

DERRICK DEON CRIST,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Derrick Deon Crist contends his three-year eight-month sentence violates his plea agreement. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In three cases, defendant pled guilty to two felony offenses and five misdemeanor offenses. On the plea form, defendant stated that he had not been induced to enter the pleas “by any promise or representation of any kind, except” for the agreement that he would receive a “terminal” sentence with no probation. In return, defendant agreed that “[t]here m[ight] be factors in aggravation which [were] not plead [sic] or proved” and

1

that he “m[ight] receive the upper term” sentence because he was “rejecting probation.” The plea form advised that the maximum sentence as a result of defendant’s plea was three years four months in county jail. The People concede this was not the correct maximum sentence for the offenses to which defendant pled. Before accepting defendant’s pleas, the trial court confirmed that defendant had initialed and signed the plea form. The court did not review the terms of the agreement on the record but did ask defendant whether anyone had threatened him or promised him anything in order to get him to plead. Defendant responded, “No.” The court then asked about the proposed “terminal” sentence, to which the prosecutor responded that the plea agreement was “open”1 and defendant preferred not to be placed on probation. No one mentioned the maximum sentence defendant faced. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in county jail for vandalism and a consecutive term of eight months in county jail for a separate act of vandalism. (Pen. Code, 2 §§ 594, 1170, subd. (h)(1).) The court declined to suspend a concluding portion of the sentence, finding mandatory supervision inappropriate in this case. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5).) For the misdemeanor offenses, the court sentenced defendant to four concurrent one-year terms and one concurrent six-month term in county jail. Defendant did not object to his sentence at the hearing. Again, no one mentioned the incorrect maximum sentence listed on the plea form. Defendant timely appealed. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, filed more than one month after his sentencing hearing, defendant for the first time raised the