Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Adams

P. v. Adams

Filed 1/19/07 P. v. Adams CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

KENNETH JAMES ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C050911

(Super. Ct. No. MF028072A)

The sole issue in this case is whether a victim restitution payment imposed by the court after defendant's guilty plea violated the terms of his plea bargain. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause. We shall conclude defendant has not demonstrated that the imposition of the victim restitution payment violated the terms of his plea bargain, a fact that distinguishes this case from the leading case of People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Walker). Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was accused of stabbing Kathleen Tompkins with a 15-inch sword, puncturing her lung and liver, and piercing her arm with a â€

Description	The sole issue in this case is whether a victim restitution payment imposed by the court after defendant's guilty plea violated the terms of his plea bargain. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause. Court conclude defendant has not demonstrated that the imposition of the victim restitution payment violated the terms of his plea bargain, a fact that distinguishes this case from the leading case of People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Walker). Accordingly, court affirm the judgment and sentence.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.