People v. Rocha CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 2022C096172California805 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236)1 and two counts of resisting, delaying, and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted a prior strike conviction. The plea agreement indicated a six-year lid if defendant failed to complete probation and a residential treatment program. Defendant agreed to the terms of the plea agreement with a Cruz2 waiver. Within two months, defense counsel notified the trial court that defendant was no longer in the treatment program. Defendant subsequently appeared before the trial court and admitted he did not complete the treatment program.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5.

2 Defendant argued a middle term sentence was appropriate because the People failed to prove any aggravating factors. The People countered that the agreement was for a six-year lid and a six-year term was proper. The trial court reviewed the transcript from the prior proceeding and concluded the parties had agreed to a six-year term. Accordingly, it imposed an upper term of three years on the false imprisonment…

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.