P. v. Stanfield
Filed 9/11/06 P. v. Stanfield CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD CHESTER STANFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. |
F049516
(Super. Ct. Nos. SC045362, HC008682A)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John I. Kelly, Judge.
George Boyle, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Peter Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
______________________
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
On March 15, 1991, appellant, Ronald Chester Stanfield, pled no contest to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).[1] On January 10, 2005, Stanfield filed a petition for writ of coram nobis asking the court to allow him to withdraw his 1991 plea. On March 9, 2005, the court denied Stanfield's petition. On appeal, Stanfield contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition. We will affirm.
FACTS
During the change of plea proceedings on March 15, 1991, the court advised Stanfield that his plea would require him to register as a sex offender.
On March 24, 1991, the court placed Stanfield on probation for three years on condition that he serve 30 days' local time.
On February 22, 1994, Stanfield's defense counsel wrote a letter to Stanfield stating:
â€
