P. v. Lorms
Defendant appeals from judgments entered after he pleaded no contest in two different cases to possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377.) He contends (1) his waiver of Proposition 36 probation was not knowing and intelligent, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) the court erred because it did not halt the proceedings and order a competency hearing, and (4) the court erred when imposing a restitution fine. Court agree the restitution fine was imposed incorrectly and order the appropriate modification. In all other respects, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Lorms