Thimmes

People v. Thimmes

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 1207·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 576·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4995·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 925·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3462
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2006H028897California2,057 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

A five-count complaint charged defendant David Michael Thimmes with possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1), being under the influence of a controlled substance (id., § 11550, subd. (a), count 2), possession of paraphernalia (id., § 11364, count 3), and violation of a protective order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a), counts 4 and 5). Count 1 was the only felony charged. The complaint also alleged one prior strike conviction. (§§667, subds. (b)-(i) and 1170.12 (the “Three Strikes” law).) Pursuant to a court-negotiated agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to all five counts and admitted the strike allegation in exchange for a promise of no more than 32 months in prison.

At sentencing, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion and sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon maximum of 32 months. The term represents the mitigated term for the possession conviction, doubled for the strike offense. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)

On appeal, defendant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because the trial court denied his Romero motion based upon a mistake of law to…

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.