Contreras

People v. Contreras

Good Law
177 Cal. App. 4th 1296·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1578·99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 2009F056089California3,982 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gomes, J.

Richard Galindo Contreras argues two issues—delay in violation of state and federal constitutional due process and speedy trial guarantees and ineffective assistance of counsel—both of which arise out of sentencing after delivery to the district attorney of a Penal Code section 1381 demand for sentencing. We affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2005, the district attorney filed two documents, a complaint that charged Contreras with, inter alia, possession of a controlled substance on January 14, 2005, and that alleged seven prison-term priors (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and a notice that informed him he did not meet the eligibility requirements for a deferred entry of judgment program due to his prior conviction of “an offense involving controlled substances or restricted dangerous drugs” (see § 1000).

On January 25, 2005, Contreras executed an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form for Proposition 36 probation, entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance, admitted two prison-term priors, and acknowledged, inter alia, a maximum possible sentence of five years in state prison if…

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.