P. v. Roseman

Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Roseman CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lance A. Ito, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Alan Siraco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Marc E. Turchin and Robert David Breton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

SUMMARY

Appellant Mark Dewayne Roseman challenges his negotiated plea bargain, arguing his failure to admit each element of the sentencing enhancements invalidates his plea. We conclude no error occurred and hold he is not entitled to vacate the judgment. However, we reverse in part to allow the trial court to revise a minor sentencing error.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]

On the evening of December 7, 2003, appellant engaged in a fight with his girlfriend and several acquaintances. The fight escalated, resulting in appellant stabbing two people. One of the victim's injuries resulted in permanent paralysis to the left side of his face.

After appellant was apprehended, lengthy plea negotiations ensued. The original plea offer from the prosecutor was a 15 year prison term, later reduced to 13 years. Appellant decided to reject the offer, and the court set a date to begin trial. The prosecutor then extended the offer for final consideration.The morning of trial, appellant stated he wished to accept the deal. The prosecutor outlined the details of the plea agreement, and the court reiterated the terms. The plea bargain called for appellant to plead to attempted murder, use of a deadly weapon, and infliction of great bodily injury resulting in paralysis for a sentence of 13 years. Appellant would also plead to assault with a deadly weapon and admit infliction of great bodily injury, as to the second victim, with the sentence running concurrently. The agreed disposition called for the dismissal of the other charges. Appellant pled nolo contendere and the court imposed a sentence of 13 years.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of appellate review for a question of law is well-settled. If a question requires critical consideration in an undisputed factual context of legal principles and their underlying values, it is a question of law. (Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888.) The reviewing court conducts a de novo review of a question of law. (See People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 664; People v. Friedman (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 824, 835.)

DISCUSSION

1. The Plea Was Valid Even Though Appellant Did Not Separately Admit Each Element of the Enhancements

Appellant contends his entire plea must be set aside and the judgment vacated because he did not admit each element of the great bodily injury enhancements. Appellant argues his failure to admit both personal causation of great bodily injury and paralysis is fatal to the judgment. We disagree.

A no contest plea constitutes a judicial admission to every element of the offense charged. (People v. Borland (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 124, 128.) A guilty or no contest plea functions to ensure that the People need not come forward with any evidence to support the accusation: the plea provides both evidence and verdict as to each element, and â€