Vento

People v. Vento

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 216·208 Cal. App. 3d 876·256 Cal. Rptr. 497
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1989F010049California1,217 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rogelio Sauceda Vento was charged with, and pled guilty to, one count of selling cocaine and marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), one count of selling cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), and two counts of soliciting or using a minor to violate Health and Safety Code section 11352 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380, subd. (a)). Probation was denied and Vento was sentenced to five years in prison. He now contends that his plea was improperly induced by the trial court’s comments regarding sentencing. We affirm.

On November 30, 1987, discussions were held in chambers between the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the trial court, regarding a disposition in the instant matter. As a result of the information conveyed to him by defense counsel, Vento agreed to plead guilty as charged. During the change of plea proceedings, Vento was advised by the trial court of the maximum sentence he faced. The trial court then stated, “Now, I indicated to your attorney that should you plead guilty or be found guilty that I would not rule out the possibility of probation and local sentencing in your case. By the same token, I would not rule out the possibility of a state prison commitment; do…

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.