People v. Andrews CA5

Filed 10/19/23 P. v. Andrews 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084179 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 19CMS4845, v. 20CMS1999 & 21CMS2492)

LAWRENCE KINGSLEY ANDREWS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert Shane Burns, Judge. Andrea Keith, 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, Louis M. Vasquez, Kari Ricci Mueller, Amanda D. Cary, and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellant Lawrence Kingsley Andrews was charged in three separate cases with various crimes. He underwent a jury trial in one of the cases, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. Thereafter, in February 2022, he reached a negotiated plea agreement with the People covering all three cases with a stipulated sentence totaling an aggregate prison term of 10 years, part of which was the upper term of imprisonment on one of the counts. The trial court approved the plea agreement, accepted appellant’s plea, and sentenced appellant in accordance with the agreement. Appellant appealed from the judgment of his convictions, and now argues the court erred by failing to comply with Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (b), as amended by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567). Respondent contends that because the Senate Bill 567 amendments were in effect at the time appellant entered his plea, his contention amounts to an attack on the validity of the plea, and as such he was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause; because he did not do so, respondent maintains the appeal must be dismissed. We agree with respondent and dismiss the appeal. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 27, 2019, a complaint was filed in Kings County Superior Court case No. 19CMS4845.2 The subsequent first amended information charged appellant with one count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1). On April 20, 2020, a complaint was filed in case No. 20CMS1999. The subsequent information charged appellant with battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 1); assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2); and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1);