Court Opinion

ID: 9371198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 18:03:06.890554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.085659
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/23 P. v. Givens 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084148
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                   (Super. Ct. No. 17982)
                    v.

    MARKIECE EUGENE GIVENS,                                                               OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mariposa County. Michael A.
Fagalde, Judge.
         Deanna L. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Markiece Eugene Givens asked this court to
review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant
did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
                                     BACKGROUND
       On April 8, 2021, a correctional officer observed defendant smoking a cigarette at
the Mount Bullion Conservation Camp in Mariposa County, a prison camp. The officer
conducted a clothed body search of defendant and found a bag containing 28 bindles of
marijuana.
       On September 13, 2021, the Mariposa County District Attorney charged defendant
with unlawfully possessing cannabis while in a prison camp (Pen. Code, § 4573.6,
subd. (a);1 count 1). The complaint further alleged defendant had suffered two prior
“strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–
(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
       On January 18, 2022, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the
two prior strike convictions in return for the low term of two years, doubled to four years
pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
       On February 10, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of
four years, as agreed. Over defendant’s objection, the court correctly reasoned that
defendant should be sentenced to a full consecutive term because the crime was
committed while in a prison camp. (§ 1170.1, subd. (c); People v. McCart (1982) 32
Cal.3d 338, 340, citing § 1170.1, former subd. (b), now subd. (c) [The term for an
in-prison offense “shall begin to run at the end of the prison term imposed for [the

1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
defendant’s] original ‘outside’ offense.”]; In re Sims (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 309, 314
[“The true legislative intent in enacting [section 1170.1, subdivision (c),] applicable to
crimes committed by state prison inmates, is to require that they serve their full term for
such conviction upon the completion of their term for other offenses for which they were
convicted. The Legislature has thus made clear that a person who commits offenses
while in prison is not entitled to the usual one-third of the middle term for consecutively
imposed sentences.”].) The court declined to award custody credits (In re Rojas (1979)
23 Cal.3d 152).
       On March 30, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
                                        DISCUSSION
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we observe that the
abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a middle term sentence of four years, rather than
a low term sentence of four years. Other than this clerical error, we find no evidence to
support any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of
judgment to reflect a low term of four years and to forward copies of the amended
abstract to the appropriate entities.

                                             3.