Ramirez

I respectfully dissent.

The complaint to which appellant entered his pleas was clear and specific: count 1 charged a violation of Penal Code 1 section 191.5, subdivision (a) (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated); count 2 charged a violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a) (leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury or death). The determinate prison sentence for count 1 is four, six or 10 years (§ 191.5, subd. (c)). Count 2 carries a determinate sentence of two, three or four years (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2)). Under the determinate sentencing law the maximum aggregate term of imprisonment for the charged offenses is 11 years. (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).) Reference to the additional term of five years provided for under Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c) is contained in the written statement of negotiated disposition, but the enhancement was never alleged and it was *1003 never admitted. The reference by the majority to appellant’s entry of a guilty plea to this section is unsupported in the record and not countenanced in the law. (People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 744-745 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 , 41 P.3d 556 ].) None of this…

Scott Ryan Ramirez appeals following his guilty pleas to gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (c)). 1 The trial court sentenced appellant to the lower term of four years for the gross vehicular manslaughter and a mandatory consecutive term of five years for leaving the accident scene.

Appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing this latter term because the felony complaint did not specifically allege subdivision (c) of section 20001 or provide appellant adequate notice of the mandatory consecutive five-year term. He argues that the mandatory consecutive five-year term was “unauthorized by law,” an error that can be raised for the first time on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627 , 885 P.2d 1040 ].) He does not pray for general reversal and the withdrawal from the negotiated disposition. He asks that we strike the mandatory consecutive five-year term and remand for resentencing pursuant to the lesser sentence scheme of section 20001, subdivision (b).

As we shall explain, appellant’s contention shrinks to a pleading point that cannot…

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

Scott Ryan Ramirez appeals following his guilty pleas to gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen.Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds.(a), (c).) [1] The trial court sentenced appellant to the lower term of four years for the gross vehicular manslaughter and a mandatory consecutive term of five years for leaving the accident scene.

Appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing this latter term because the felony complaint did not specifically allege subdivision (c) or provide appellant adequate notice of the mandatory consecutive five year term. He argues that the mandatory consecutive five year term was "unauthorized by law," an error that can be raised for the first time on appeal. ( People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627 , 885 P.2d 1040 .) He does not pray for general reversal and the withdrawal from the negotiated disposition. He asks that we strike the mandatory consecutive five year term and remand for resentencing pursuant to the lesser sentence scheme of section 20001 subdivision (b).

As we shall explain, appellant's contention shrinks to a pleading point that cannot…