People v. Steffek CA5

Filed 5/21/24 P. v. Steffek 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F086723 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RF009105A) v.

GORDON LEE STEFFEK, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., 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, Kimberley A. Donohue and Caitlin Franzen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Appellant Gordon Lee Steffek appeals following his sentencing on one count of assault on a peace officer with an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury. Appellant argues his plea colloquy was improper because he was not specifically told that his driver’s license would be suspended for life based on the plea agreement. Appellant requests we vacate his plea and sentence and remand for further proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts relevant to appellant’s single claim on appeal are relatively simple. The District Attorney of Kern County filed a complaint on November 2, 2022, charging appellant with assault with a deadly weapon, a motor vehicle, (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);1 count 1); battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2); assault on a police officer (§ 245, subd. (c); count 3); resisting an executive officer (§ 69; count 4); improperly possessing ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 5); and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 6). The complaint also alleged enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) as to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 and possessing one prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, appellant pleaded no contest to count 3 and admitted inflicting great bodily injury and having a prior strike conviction. In exchange, the remaining counts would be dismissed and appellant would receive a five- year sentence, avoiding a potential maximum sentence of 13 years. As part of the plea, appellant entered into a so-called Cruz2 waiver, in which appellant was released pending