People v. Ayyad CA3

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Ayyad 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097315

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE005940)

v.

YAZID AYYAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Yazid Ayyad pleaded no contest to reckless driving while evading a peace officer and admitted a prior strike conviction resulting in a sentence of 32 months. The trial court released defendant with a Cruz (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247) waiver. After defendant failed to appear for the sentencing hearing the trial court imposed a four-year sentence. On appeal, defendant argues the court failed to adequately

1

advise him of his rights when it obtained the Cruz waiver and the sentence must be reduced to 32 months or he must be allowed to withdraw his plea. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant fled from police after a traffic stop, ran red lights and drove up to 110 miles per hour during an ensuing chase that lasted 24 minutes. The prosecution charged defendant with driving against traffic while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.4), reckless driving while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(3)); statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated), and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). The prosecution also alleged a prior strike conviction: a 2009 robbery conviction (§ 211). Defendant pleaded no contest to the reckless driving while evading a peace officer count and admitted the prior strike for a negotiated sentence of 32 months. Defendant wanted to be out of custody before the sentencing hearing to handle “family matters,” and defense counsel advised him that “if he doesn’t show up on the date he sets right now he will be facing six years state prison.” The court explained what would happen next: “THE COURT: You’re going to get released today, sir. [¶] You are ordered to appear here on June 16th, 8:30, in this department. [¶] And so you show up on June 16th and get 32 months’ state prison sentence. [¶] If you don’t show up, I have the discretion to impose whatever sentence I deem appropriate, and that could be the upper term for the evading charge, which is three years doubled for six. [¶] So if you don’t show up, when you get picked up I have the ability to say, you know, it’s not 32 months. It’s actually going to be six years of state prison. [¶] Do you understand that? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes, your Honor.