P. v. Repass










Filed 4/25/17 P. v. Repass CA6




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TUCKER JAMES REPASS,

Defendant and Appellant.

H043420
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1526521)

Defendant Tucker James Repass was charged by complaint with felony manufacturing butane honey oil (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)),[1] felony possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359), misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)), and felony maintaining a place for unlawful controlled substance activities (§ 11366). It was further alleged that defendant had been armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in the commission of the manufacturing count and in the commission of the felony possession count.
Defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he agreed to plead no contest to the felony possession count and admit the firearm allegation attached to that count in exchange for probation and the dismissal of the other counts and the remaining enhancement. He entered his plea and admission, and the court stated that “the remaining counts are submitted for dismissal at the time of sentencing.” At the sentencing hearing, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation conditioned on a year in jail. However, the court neglected to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement. Yet the clerk’s minutes reflect that the court dismissed the remaining counts and enhancement.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the probation order. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement as called for in the plea agreement. The Attorney General concedes that the court was required to do so. We agree. “When a guilty [or no contest] plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.” (People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024, overruled on a different point in People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183.)
The order is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement.






_______________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






_____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.






_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.




Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



[1] Subsequent statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.