Reed

People v. Reed

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 238·62 Cal. App. 4th 593·72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615·98 Daily Journal DAR 2908·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2141
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1998F025847California3,945 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dibiaso, J.

We hold in part that a lawyer does not render constitutionally inadequate representation when he or she fails to inform the client sua sponte about the prison sentence credit limitations in Penal Code section 2933.1 before the client pleads nolo contendere to a crime subject to such credit limitations.

On November 9, 1995, a jury found appellant Ricky Thomas Reed guilty of indecent exposure with a prior conviction for the same offense (count 2; Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1). The jury deadlocked on the charge that Reed had committed a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (count 1; § 288, subd. (a)). The court in a bifurcated proceeding found true the special allegation under count 2 that Reed had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On November 17, 1995, Reed withdrew his plea of not guilty to count 1 and entered a plea of nolo contendere pursuant to a negotiated disposition which provided that Reed would receive the lower term of three years in state prison for count 1 and a concurrent three-year sentence for count 2.

Thereafter, Reed moved to withdraw his plea. The motion was denied on February 28,…

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.