P. v. Ward
Filed 8/11/06 P. v. Ward CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COLUMBUS WARD, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
F048272
(Super. Ct. No. F04908813-9)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John Vogt, Judge.
Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In December of 2004, Columbus Ward, Jr. (appellant) was charged with one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), and one count of possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). On December 27, 2004, appellant pled guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). In exchange for the plea, the district attorney agreed that: (1) appellant be sentenced to a two-year prison term, to be served concurrently with a parole violation; (2) the remaining counts and allegations be dismissed; (3) all charges in an additional pending matter be dismissed; and (4) money seized as evidence in both matters be released, and thereafter placed on appellant's book account at the jail. On June 20, 2005, the court denied appellant's seventh motion to continue sentencing and sentenced appellant to the middle term of two years in state prison, awarded him custody credits, and imposed various fines. A total of $439 had been released and placed in appellant's jail account by the date sentencing occurred.
On appeal, appellant contends the matter should be remanded for specific enforcement of the prosecutor's agreement to release the remainder of the money seized in the two matters disposed of by the plea agreement.[1] In the alternative, appellant contends the matter should be remanded with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing on whether the county legally garnished a portion of his money. We reject appellant's contentions and affirm.[2]
DISCUSSION
Background
At the change of plea hearing on December 27, 2004, the prosecutor described the offer made to appellant as: the midterm of two years for simple possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)); dismissal of the current remaining counts and enhancements; and dismissal of the matter pending in case No. F04907325-5. Defense counsel Douglas Foster additionally explained that the agreement included that â€
