People v. Valentine CA5

Filed 2/5/24 P. v. Valentine 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F086375 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F21907499) v.

CARSON ANDREW VALENTINE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gabriel L. Brickey, Judge. Dan Moseley for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill, and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

Defendant and appellant Carson Andrew Valentine contends the court erred in having him serve one year in jail rather than probation, and erroneously denied his motion for release pending appeal. We reject the first contention and conclude the second is therefore moot. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In a felony complaint filed September 24, 2021, defendant was charged with carrying a loaded firearm in public (count 1; Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a))1 of which he was not the registered owner (id., subd. (c)(6)), concealing a firearm in a vehicle (count 2; § 25400, subd. (a)(1)) of which he was not the registered owner (id., subd. (c)(6)), possessing fentanyl, a controlled substance, for sale (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possessing oxycodone, a controlled substance, for sale (count 4; ibid.), possessing Xanax, a designated controlled substance, for sale (count 5; Health & Saf. Code, § 11375, subd. (b)(1).) On April 19, 2023, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 4, and the nonregistered-owner allegation. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to a two-year lid on defendant’s sentence and to dismiss the remaining charges. The prosecution moved to dismiss the remaining counts while “reserving [the] right to comment” on them in the future. Defendant was continued on pretrial supervised release. The probation officer found no circumstances in mitigation or aggravation relating to the crime. As for factors relating to the defendant, the probation officer cited in aggravation the numerous and/or increasingly serious criminal history. In mitigation, the probation officer concluded defendant had an insignificant record of criminal conduct, considering the recency and frequency of prior crimes; he was young; and voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing. The probation officer recommended that defendant be granted probation.