P. v. Stapleton
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY Defendant and Appellant. | E039668 (Super.Ct.No. RIF123572) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kenneth Fernandez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to
Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Pat Zaharopoulos, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement defendant Randy Lee Stapleton received a Proposition 36 (Prop. 36) drug treatment program in lieu of going to state prison. When he failed to complete the drug treatment program, the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a prison term without obtaining information in order to exercise its discretion; (2) the trial court violated his due process right by failing to hold a drug program termination hearing; and (3) he did not waive his due process claim. We conclude that defendant waived his right to a drug program termination hearing when he accepted the renegotiated plea bargain and affirm. Defendant requests that we take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452 that defendant's trial counsel has retired. Defense counsel's retirement is not relevant to any issue in this appeal. Therefore, defendant's request for judicial notice is denied.
FACTUAL
Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) on case number RIF123572 (new charge) and admitted he violated his probation on case number RIF116250 (prior charge). In exchange for his guilty plea and admitting his probation violation, defendant was given an opportunity to enroll in a Prop. 36 residential drug treatment program called the Recovery Opportunity Center (ROC). The amended plea agreement stated that if defendant successfully completed the one-year aftercare program, his sentence would be modified to one year of formal probation. If he did not successfully complete the one-year aftercare program, he would be sentenced to four years in state prison. The trial court granted defendant an own recognizance (OR) release and defendant waived time for sentencing in order to participate in the ROC program. The trial court ordered defendant to return three weeks later for an initial individualized case plan for the ROC program. It did not place defendant on probation.
Eight days later, the probation department requested that the trial court issue a bench warrant for defendant because he had â€
