P. v. Derritt
Filed 9/15/06 P. v. Derritt CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DE ANDRE LAMONT DERRITT, Defendant and Appellant. | E038346 (Super.Ct.No. FVI14430) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Stacy Tyler, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent
As part of a negotiated settlement under which he was to receive a Proposition 36 referral (Pen. Code,[1] § 1210.1), De Andre Lamont Derritt (appellant) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and also admitted a prior serious strike conviction. (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)) As it turned out, appellant was not statutorily eligible for Proposition 36 probation, after which he moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground he had been misinformed by his trial counsel regarding the applicable law. The motion was denied. On appeal, appellant contends the denial was an abuse of the trial court's discretion in that his guilty plea was a product of ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm.
DISCUSSION
A. Proposition 36.
â€
