Court Opinion

ID: 9840465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:03:40.585556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:32.710463
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/18/23 P. v. Millsap 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085358
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. BF191472A)
                    v.

 ANTWON MARKESH MILLSAP,                                                                  OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M.
Humphrey, Judge.
         John L. Staley, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
                         STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
       This appeal is from a final judgment following a no contest plea which disposed of
all issues between the parties. (Pen. Code § 1237, subd. (a).)1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE
       On September 21, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information
charging Millsap with taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), a felony;
possessing drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), a misdemeanor; and
obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3), a misdemeanor. The
information also alleged as to count 1 factors in aggravation of the sentence, a prior
conviction (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), and two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j),
1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)). The superior court case number was BF191472A (abstract
count 1A).
       On November 15, 2022, Millsap pled no contest to count 1 and admitted a prior
strike conviction. The trial court agreed to strike the prior strike conviction when Millsap
was sentenced. There was a stipulated factual basis for the plea. The remaining counts
were dismissed in light of the plea.
       The parties agreed Millsap would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months to be
served concurrently with the sentences in case numbers BF188078A and BF178610A.
Case No. BF188078A (abstract 1B) was a conviction for attempted carjacking (§§ 215,
subd. (a), 664)2 and case No. BF178610A (abstract 1C) was a conviction for possession
of a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Millsap that same day as
follows: (1) 16 months in case No. BF191472A; (2) 18 months in case No. BF188078A;
and (3) 16 months in case No. BF178610A. The three sentences were to be served

       1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

       2 This conviction is listed in the abstract of judgment as count 1B. The abstract of
judgment incorrectly lists section 644 as the attempt statute. The appropriate section is
section 664 and we will order this correction in the disposition.

                                             2.
concurrently.3 Millsap was awarded 156 days of custody credits in case
No. BF191472A, 232 days in case No. BF1888078A, and 568 days in BF178610A.
Millsap was ordered to pay the following fines and fees: (1) a $300 restitution fine in
case Nos. BF191472A and BF188078A; (2) a stayed parole revocation fine in case Nos.
BF191472A and BF188078A; (3) a $300 probation revocation fine in case
No. BF188078A; (4) a $10 crime prevention fee in case No. BF188078A (§ 1202.5);4
(4) an $80 court operation assessment; and (5) a $60 conviction assessment.
       On December 1, 2022, Millsap filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a
certificate of probable cause. It appears the trial court did not rule on this request.
                                STATEMENT OF FACTS5
       On August 29, 2022, at approximately 11:52 p.m., Bakersfield Police Officer
Joshua Cavazos and his partner were on patrol in Kern County in the 1100 block of
Kentucky Street. Officer Cavazos saw a 2003 Jeep Liberty which had earlier been
reported stolen. The theft was later confirmed with the vehicle’s owners. Millsap was
the driver and only occupant. The officers stopped the vehicle. Millsap was ordered to
exit the vehicle but instead drove away. Millsap eventually stopped in the 1300 block of
Alta Vista, exited the vehicle, and was arrested.

       3 The abstract of judgment indicates the count 1B sentence is concurrent to the
count 1A sentence. In other words, count 1A is listed as the principal term. This is
incorrect. “The principal term shall consist of the greatest term of imprisonment imposed
by the court for any of the crimes ….” (§ 1170.1.) Because the sentence on count 1B is
the greatest term imposed, it is the principal term. We will order this correction in the
disposition.
       4 This fee was imposed for the count 1B attempted carjacking conviction.
Section 1202.5 does not apply to attempt. (People v. Jefferson (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th
660, 663.) We will order this fee stricken in the disposition.
       5 The facts are drawn from the September 16, 2022, preliminary hearing transcript.

                                              3.
                               APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
       Millsap’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes
the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record
independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also
includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Millsap was advised he could file
his own brief with this court. By letter on August 1, 2023, we invited Millsap to submit
additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Millsap.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of
judgment to properly reflect the sentence on count 1B as the principal term, and to reflect
the appropriate Penal Code section for attempt. (People v. Mendez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 680,
716 [an “unauthorized [sentence is] subject to judicial correction at any time”]; § 1170.1.)
The section 1202.5 fee is stricken. The trial court shall forward the corrected abstract to
the appropriate authorities.

                                              4.