P. v. Smith
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Smith CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DUANE PAUL SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. | H029120 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. F08467, F08812) |
Defendant Duane Paul Smith was charged by complaint No. F08467, filed November 20, 2003, with possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The complaint further alleged that defendant had a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5). On December 19, 2003, defendant appeared with appointed counsel and pleaded guilty to the substantive offense, on condition that the prior allegations be stricken and that he be granted probation. The court accepted the plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions.
Defendant was charged by information No. F08812, filed May 12, 2004, with assault with a deadly weapon, a bat (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2). The information further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim during the commission of the offense in count 1 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), that he had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that also qualified as a strike, and that he had served a prior prison term. As a result of the new charges, a probation violation hearing was set in case No. F08467.
On November 9, 2004, defendant appeared with appointed counsel and pleaded guilty to the new offenses and admitted the great bodily injury and prior allegations on condition that he receive a prison sentence of no more than 12 years. The court stated that it understood that defendant would be requesting probation at Delancy Street, but that it was â€
