legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Mamaril

P. v. Mamaril
02:12:2007

P


P. v. Mamaril


Filed 1/12/07  P. v. Mamaril CA3


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED


 


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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT


(Sacramento)


----







THE PEOPLE,


     Plaintiff and Respondent,


     v.


MICHAEL MAMARIL,


     Defendant and Appellant.



C052994


(Super. Ct. No. 05F09368)



     Between January 1 and October 22, 2005, defendant Michael Mamaril conspired to distribute and sell methamphetamine.  On October 5, 2005, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant received a phone call from a woman â€





Description Between January 1 and October 22, 2005, defendant conspired to distribute and sell methamphetamine. On October 5, 2005, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant received a phone call from a woman "for the purpose of delivering methamphetamine." Defendant told the woman "he would not be delivering that methamphetamine" because there was "too much Sheriff's activity in the area." Defendant had previously been convicted, in December 1989, of robbery.
Defendant pleaded no contest to conspiracy to sell or distribute methamphetamine (Pen. Code, S 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, S 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior juvenile conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, S 211) within the meaning of the three strikes law (id., SS 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)_(i)) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of six years in state prison.
Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to six years in prison, consisting of the middle term of three years, doubled for the strike, with credit for 354 days (236 actual days and 118 good conduct days). The trial court also imposed a $1,200 restitution fine (S 1202.4, subd. (b)) and stayed a $1,200 parole revocation fine ( S 1202.45) and ordered defendant to provide DNA samples (S 296). Defendant appealed.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale