P. v. Robinson
On April 13, 2006, appellant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a), count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, count 2), being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3), and unlawfully possessing ammunition (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1), count 4). Appellant admitted an allegation in count 2 that he was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (c). Appellant also admitted allegations that he was previously convicted of a serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (c) through (j)) and had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
In taking appellants plea, the trial court informed him the maximum prison term he could receive would be 13 years and he would serve a minimum term of 32 months. On August 8, 2006, the court sentenced appellant to prison for the midterm of two years on count 2. The court imposed the midterm sentence on counts 3 and 4, but stayed execution of sentence pursuant to section 654. On count 1, the court stated it was imposing the midterm sentence of two years.[2] The court exercised its discretion to strike the prior serious felony allegation. The court imposed a term of four years for the section 12022, subdivision (c) allegation, plus two years for the two prior prison term enhancements. Appellants total prison term is eight years. The court granted applicable custody credits and imposed a restitution fine.
On appeal, appellant contends and respondent concedes that the trial court erred in applying and then staying sentence on the two prior prison term enhancements to each count. Appellant also contends the court announced a sentence of two years on count 1 and that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that appellant received the lower prison term. Respondent asserts there is an ambiguity in the courts sentence and the case should be remanded for clarification.
Comments on P. v. Robinson