People v. Clark CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 12, 2016C076978ACalifornia1,634 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hoch, J.

BACKGROUND

A recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s convictions is unnecessary to the resolution of the instant appeal. We provide the following summary of the pertinent procedural history of the relevant criminal proceedings. In case No. 12-0286, defendant pleaded guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior domestic violence conviction (former § 273.5, subd. (e), Stats. 2007, ch. 582, § 1) in exchange for three years’ probation and a dismissal of other charges. In 2012, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted defendant probation for a period of three years, and imposed, in addition to other statutory fines and fees, a restitution and a probation revocation restitution fine of $1,200 each.2 However, the trial court “stayed” all but $240

As part of this same plea agreement, defendant admitted a violation of probation in another case in exchange for a sentence of 90 days in jail, pleaded guilty to petty theft in another case in exchange for a terminal sentence of 90 days, and pleaded guilty to violation of a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)) in another case for a terminal sentence…

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.