People v. Stanford CA3

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

A detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction is unnecessary to our resolution of the claims on appeal. We summarize the pertinent facts from our prior opinion in People v. Mamaril (May 4, 2009, C058468 [nonpub. opn.] (Mamaril)), which we incorporate by reference on our own motion. In 2006, defendant made a series of phone calls from the jail where he was housed. (Mamaril, supra, C058468.) During these calls, using coded language, defendant discussed various rock cocaine transactions with his codefendant and his girlfriend. (Ibid.) Defendant and his codefendant were eventually charged via an information with conspiracy to sell rock cocaine. (Ibid.) The information also alleged defendant had a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); § 11370.2, subd. (a)); six prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12); and six prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). (Mamaril, supra, C058468.) Further, the information alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction for attempted murder (§§ 664 & 187), three separate robbery convictions (§ 211), and two separate convictions for assault with a firearm…