People v. Morris CA2/4

Filed 3/21/24 P. v. Morris CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B328754

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA158524) v.

KD MORRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lynn D. Olson, Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant KD Morris was charged by felony complaint with one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).1 The information alleged prior serious and/or violent felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12). At the arraignment on September 30, 2022, defendant pled not guilty and denied all allegations. Represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing on October 27, 2022, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and agreed to plead no contest to the charge of aggravated assault in return for a low-term two-year sentence. (See People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 (West).) The trial court orally advised defendant of his constitutional rights and consequences of his plea. Defendant waived his rights and affirmed he was voluntarily changing his plea to take advantage of the People’s offer. Trial counsel joined in the waivers and stipulated to the factual basis of the plea as based on the felony complaint and his own conversations with defendant. Finding defendant’s plea and waivers “were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made with full knowledge of the consequences of the plea and there’s a factual basis for it,” the court accepted defendant’s plea and set the matter for a probation and sentencing hearing. At the probation and sentencing hearing, the court imposed the agreed-upon two-year sentence and awarded defendant custody and good time credits. The court also granted defendant’s request to waive fines and fees and granted the People’s motion to dismiss the prior conviction allegations. The