Childress

People v. Childress

Good Law
189 Cal. App. 3d 1220·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1439·234 Cal. Rptr. 732
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1987F006683California605 words

Opinion

Opinion

Childress was convicted on his guilty plea of kidnap (count two, Pen. Code, § 207). He admitted having served a prior prison term based on a 1982 conviction for burglary (§§ 667.5,459). The guilty plea and admission were pursuant to a plea bargain which provided for a stipulated prison term of eight years (the seven-year upper base term for the kidnap plus the one-year additional term for the prior) and the dismissal of several other charges and enhancements. At sentencing, at the request of Childress’s counsel, the trial court imposed the stipulated term of eight years. In an appellate about-face, Childress now argues that 1) the trial court failed to state reasons for the upper base term and 2) the prior prison term enhancement was improper because he actually never set foot in prison for his 1982 crime. Both contentions border on the frivolous.

On the first point Childress avoids mention of rule 440(a), which provides: “(a) If a plea of guilty or nolo contendere was entered pursuant to section 1192.5 and the plea was accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and was conditionally approved by the court, the defendant’s specification of the punishment and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.