Chatmon

People v. Chatmon

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 771·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 817·2005 Daily Journal DAR 5952·28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4344
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 2005A104929California1,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

In April 2003, Fredrick Rico Chatmon pleaded no contest to a charge of cocaine possession. In exchange, the court dismissed a charge of resisting a police officer (Chatmon agreed to a Harvey waiver), suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Chatmon on three years of probation with a 90-day jail term. Chatmon agreed to waive his rights to sue the Vallejo Police Department and to appeal the judgment. In October 2003, the court revoked Chatmon’s probation. He had failed to maintain contact with his probation officer, failed to appear for his jail term, failed to perform drug testing, and failed to attend AIDS counseling. The court reinstated Chatmon on probation, conditioned on service of a 180-day jail term. Chatmon waived his presentence custody credits.

The court issued a certificate of probable cause, and Chatmon filed this appeal. He contends the court should have sentenced him to probation and drug treatment under Proposition 36. The Attorney General contends Chatmon is barred from raising this issue because he received the benefit of his plea bargain. We agree. “Where the defendants have pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not…

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.