People v. Cole CA2/2

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Cole CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B318976

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA107090) v.

ODDIS V. COLE III,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Affirmed. Laura R. Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Oddis Vermont Cole III (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following termination of his probation and imposition of sentence. He contends that he was entitled to remand to determine whether custody credits are due for the substance abuse treatment program he attended as a condition of probation. Finding no merit to defendant’s claim, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In May 2020 defendant was charged with one count of attempted second degree robbery. It was also alleged that defendant had three prior serious or violent felonies under the “Three Strikes” law, sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(j), and 1170.12, and under the five-year recidivist enhancement of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). On June 23, 2020, defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby the information was amended to add as count 2, felony possession of a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 21310,1 to which he pled no contest. Pursuant to the agreement, the prosecution recommended formal probation with a one-year mental health program. The matter was continued, and eventually the trial court heard from a representative of the Department of Mental Health recommending treatment at its Men’s Community Reintegration Program (MCRP). On November 13, 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation, conditioned upon 365 days in the county jail with credit for time served of 365