P. v. Sams

Filed 5/12/06  P. v. Sams CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank A. Brown, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Ronny Edward Sams pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,^[1] §  496d) and resisting an officer (§  148, subd. (a)(1)).  Sams also admitted two prison priors (§§  667.5, subd. (b), 668) and a strike (§§  667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).  The court sentenced Sams to four years in prison:  double the lower two-year term for receiving a stolen vehicle (§§  667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and time served for resisting an officer.  Sams contends the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence because there was insufficient evidence to qualify his 1996 conviction as a strike.  We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

            In July 2004, the regional auto theft task force was conducting surveillance of a car reported to be stolen.  Sams was observed walking up to and getting into the car.  As the task force converged on the car, Sams fled, but after a short chase he was apprehended and arrested.

            In April 2005, at a change of plea hearing on various charges, including receiving a stolen vehicle and resisting an officer, the following colloquy occurred:

" THE COURT:  Then there [are], again, two prison priors.  Do you admit those, the same ones we talked about before?

" THE DEFENDANT:  Yes.

" THE COURT:  And also do you admit the strike, [Vehicle Code section] 23153, the strike in 1996?

" THE DEFENDANT:  I do.

" THE COURT:  I'll make a finding based on the preliminary hearing transcripts and investigative reports that there is sufficient factual basis.  I'll accept the guilty plea to counts--the sheet in this case, with all the allegations."

DISCUSSION

            The issue on appeal involves the legal effect of Sams's admission to the 1996 strike.  Despite admitting the strike, Sams contends the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence.  Sams argues there was insufficient evidence to qualify his 1996 conviction as a strike because the record does not show the conviction resulted in great bodily injury, qualifying it as a serious felony and therefore a strike.  (§§  667, subd. (e)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)  Because the evidence is undisputed, we review the matter de novo.  (People v. Pleasant (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 194, 197.)

            The information alleged Sams's 1996 conviction of Vehicle Code section 23153 was a serious or violent felony and a strike.  At the change of plea hearing, Sams admitted the 1996 conviction was in fact a strike.  " Admissions of enhancements are subject to the same principles as guilty pleas.  [Citations.]  A guilty plea admits every element of the offense charged and is a conclusive admission of guilt.  [Citations.]  It waives any right to raise questions about the evidence, including its sufficiency.  [Citation.]"   (People v. Lobaugh (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 780, 785.) 

            Sams's admission waived his right to question the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the strike.  (People v. Lobaugh, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 785.)  His admission obviated the need for the prosecution to come forward with any evidence and constituted a concession that the prosecution possessed legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove the strike allegations.  (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125.)  Further, Sams's admission extends to all allegations concerning the felony contained in the information.  (People v. Ebner (1966) 64 Cal.2d 297, 303; People v. Richard (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1162.)  Thus, the admission conceded Sams violated Vehicle Code section 23153 in a manner rendering it a " serious or violent felony" under section 1192.7.  The prosecution was not obliged to prove Sams inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

  HUFFMAN, J.

McDONALD, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1]             Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless indicated otherwise.