P. v. Alfred
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Alfred CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAROLD ALFRED, Defendant and Appellant. | B186953 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA279559) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael S. Luros, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Harold Alfred, appeals from his nolo contendere plea for possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and his admission that he was previously convicted of a serious felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior serious felony conviction pursuant to Penal Code[1] section 1385, subdivision (a) and his sentence is cruel or unusual. We asked the parties to brief the issue of whether the abstract of judgment must be modified. We affirm but order modifications to the abstract of judgment.
We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909.) On March 1, 2005, Los Angeles police officers saw defendant remove an off-white solid item resembling rock cocaine from a clear plastic bindle and hand it to Ricardo Ayala. When defendant was arrested shortly thereafter, a clear plastic bindle containing 11.23 grams of cocaine base was removed from his waistband. An additional bindle containing cocaine base was removed from defendant's underwear when he was searched at the time he was booked into custody.
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise its section 1385, subdivision (a) discretion to strike his prior serious felony conviction. While the trial judge's order is subject to review for abuse of discretion, the California Supreme Court has made clear: â€
