From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Liggons

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 13, 2008
No. D051097 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL DEWAYNE LIGGONS, Defendant and Appellant. D051097 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division March 13, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh and David J. Danielson, Judges, Super. Ct. No. SCD205197

McCONNELL, P. J.

Darrell Dewayne Liggons entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted he had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced Liggons to 32 months in prison (double the low term for the possession conviction) under the Three Strikes Law. (§ 667, subd. (e)(1).)

Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

Liggons appeals, contending the sentence should be vacated because at the change of plea hearing he was told the sentence he would receive would not exceed "three years at half time" or, in practical terms, he would not have to serve more than 18 months in prison.

FACTS

On March 7, 2007, a San Diego police officer observed Liggons riding a bicycle into oncoming traffic. The officer approached Liggons, who appeared nervous; Liggons was sweating profusely and moving his arms from side to side. Before the officer could administer tests to determine if Liggons was under the influence, he told the officer that he "used a little" a while ago. Liggons also admitted he had rock cocaine in his pocket. The officer found cocaine base in Liggons's pants pocket. The cocaine base weighed .52 grams.

On May 3 Liggons pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. The change of plea form contained the following handwritten description of the plea agreement: "No deals w/D.A. STC. court; strongly consider striking strike & imposing 3 years." On the change of plea form, Liggons initialed, among other things that (1) his maximum punishment as a result of the plea was 10 years in prison and (2) his attorney had explained a possible consequence of the plea was a reduction of conduct credits to 20 percent as a result of the prior strike. In discussing the change of plea, the trial court (Judge Deddeh) told Liggons:

"In exchange for your guilty plea, the D.A.'s office is dismissing the balance of the charges against you, but is making no other deals with you regarding sentencing.

"I've indicated to your attorney that I'll strongly consider striking your strike and imposing three years at half time.

Defense counsel then said Liggons hoped to receive less than the indicated sentence and preferred to be sentenced by Judge Danielson. At which point the court engaged in the following colloquy:

"THE COURT: Okay. So the worst you're going to do is three years at half time, okay?

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

"THE COURT: You could do better, okay? So I've written on the change of plea form . . . strongly consider striking the strike and imposing three years.

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Right. That's fair enough. That's what's been indicated.

Liggons said this was his understanding of the agreement as well.

Liggons orally acknowledged that he faced a maximum prison term of 10 years and that unless the sentencing judge dismissed the strike, the maximum amount of conduct credits he could earn was 20 percent.

On June 7 Liggons appeared before Judge Danielson for sentencing. Judge Danielson denied Liggons's motion to strike his prior strike conviction and sentenced him to a 32-month prison sentence; double the lower term of 16 months. The court struck the four prior prison term enhancements.

DISCUSSION

Liggons contends that the sentence he received did not comply with his plea bargain because at the change of plea hearing, the trial court effectively assured him that he would serve no more than 18 months in prison.

One of the consequences of a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction is it limits a defendant's ability to earn conduct and work credits while incarcerated to 20 percent of the defendant's sentence. (§ 667, subd. (c)(5).) Generally, non-strike defendants are eligible to receive work time credit in prison at a rate of 50 percent. (§ 2933, subd. (a).)

Although Liggons's appeal is couched in terms of a challenge to the sentence, he actually is contesting his guilty plea. After all, the basis for the appeal is Judge Deddeh's comment: "So the worst you're going to do is three years at half time, okay?" This comment was made at the change of plea hearing immediately after counsel stated Liggons wanted to be sentenced by Judge Danielson rather than Judge Deddeh. At that point, Judge Deddeh simply reiterated what he would do if the sentencing was before him—consider striking the prior strike and imposing a three-year prison sentence, which was indicated on the change of plea form. The reference to "half time" meant that Liggons would be eligible to receive work time credit in prison at a rate of 50 percent if the prior strike were stricken. (See § 2933, subd (a).)

" '[T]he crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging, not the time or manner in which the challenge is made.'' (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.)

The Attorney General correctly points out that a challenge to the validity of a negotiated plea requires a certificate of probable cause. When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, he may not bring an appeal challenging the validity of the plea unless he "has sought, and the trial court has issued, a certificate of probable cause 'showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.' " (People v. Emery (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 560, 562; see § 1237.5.) Because Liggons did not obtain the requisite certificate of probable cause, his claim is not cognizable on appeal.

Even if we were to consider Liggons's contention, it would be without merit. The change of plea form read that Liggons's only inducement to pleading guilty was the sentencing court would "strongly consider striking strike and imposing 3 years." Placed in proper context, Judge Deddeh's "three years at half time" comments merely indicated what he would impose if he were the sentencing judge. However, Liggons chose not to be sentenced by Judge Deddeh. By choosing to have a different judge sentence him, Liggons gambled that he would receive a sentence no worse than that indicated by Judge Deddeh. Under these circumstances, Liggons should be estopped from challenging the sentence he received.

Furthermore, the plea agreement does not contain a sentencing lid; it says the sentencing court would consider striking the prior strike conviction and imposing three years. At the sentencing hearing, Judge Danielsen considered striking the prior strike conviction, but declined to do so because he found this case was not outside the spirit of the Three Strikes Law. Liggons received what he bargained for.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, J., McINTYRE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Liggons

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 13, 2008
No. D051097 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Liggons

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL DEWAYNE LIGGONS…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Mar 13, 2008

Citations

No. D051097 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2008)