Court Opinion

ID: 9389612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 21:02:45.886318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.756930
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/25/23 P. v. Green 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085258
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. RF009050A)
                    v.

    DESHAWN LEAVELL GREEN,                                                                OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT *
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth G.
Pritchard, Judge.
         William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Deshawn Leavell Green 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.
                                     BACKGROUND
       On or about August 1, 2022, defendant committed domestic violence against a
person he was dating.
       On September 6, 2022, defendant pled no contest to felony domestic violence
(Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 4) and admitted having suffered two prior “strike”
felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667,
subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). In exchange, defendant would receive dismissal
of four other counts and the low term of two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the
Three Strikes law.
       Pending sentencing, defendant was released on his own recognizance pursuant to a
Cruz waiver,1 which provided that he would be sentenced to the upper term of four years,
doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, if he failed to obey all laws or
failed to appear for sentencing.
       While released on his own recognizance, defendant committed a new
misdemeanor criminal offense, thereby violating the terms of his Cruz waiver.

1      A Cruz waiver, which is part of the plea agreement, is an agreement by the
defendant that if he or she is released from custody after the trial court accepts the plea
but before sentencing, the defendant promises not to commit other crimes while released
and promises to appear for the sentencing hearing. If the defendant breaches this
agreement, he or she will then face the maximum term sentence for the crimes to which
he or she pled. (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247; People v. Vargas (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 644, 646.)

                                             2.
      At sentencing on October 11, 2022, defendant admitted violating the terms of his
Cruz waiver. He was offered and accepted a three-year term, doubled to six years
pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The new misdemeanor count was dismissed. The
court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon six years in prison, granted custody credits,
and imposed various fines and fees.
      On November 9, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
                                      DISCUSSION
      Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                            3.