P. v. Baccus
Filed 4/26/06 P. v. Baccus CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RILEY EDWIN BACCUS, Defendant and Respondent. | B185043 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA089657) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David S. Milton, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Lael Rubin, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Tracey Lopez, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Sherri Lira and Graciela Martinez, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________
Riley Baccus entered a plea of no contest to two felony counts and admitted having suffered a prior felony conviction in exchange for an indicated sentence of 4 years in state prison. The People appeal from the ensuing judgment, contending that the sentence was unlawful. We agree and reverse the judgment with directions that defendant be permitted to withdraw his plea.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with making a criminal threat against Cresensiano Revelez and assaulting Revelez on June 17, 2005. It was also alleged that defendant had been convicted of making a criminal threat in 1998 within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) (section 667(a)(1)), and sections 1170.12/667, subdivisions (b) through (i) (the Three Strikes law).
At a hearing on July 5, 2005, defendant stated that he wanted to accepted the court's indicated sentence of 4 years. The People objected, noting that the only way to achieve that sentence would be to impose concurrent lower terms of 2 years doubled under the Three Strikes law and to ignore improperly the 5-year enhancement required under section 667(a)(1). The court stated that, although it was permissible to sentence under both section 667(a)(1) and the Three Strikes law, such a sentence was not appropriate in this case. Following defendant's plea and imposition of a 4-year term, the court stated that it would â€
