From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Robinson

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Sep 9, 2008
No. C055002 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant. C055002 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento September 9, 2008

Super. Ct. No. 06F02714

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

Following an unsuccessful speedy trial motion (CT 263-265), defendant Martin Robinson pled no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more within 10 years of a prior felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subds. (a) & (b), 23550.5, subd. (a)(1)--counts one and two) and admitted having a blood-alcohol concentration of .15 percent or above. (Veh. Code, § 23578.) He also pled no contest to falsely personating another (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. 3--count three) and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)--count four), and admitted that he had served three prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Prior to defendant’s plea, the trial court agreed to sentence defendant to a two-year term in state prison and to issue a certificate of probable cause.

The charges were based on an incident in which defendant was arrested for DUI and used his brother’s name to identify himself. Defendant took a breath test, with results indicating a blood-alcohol level of .16 percent and, later, a blood test indicating a blood-alcohol level of .14 percent. He was released on his own recognizance under his brother’s name. Defendant had a conviction in 2003 for felony DUI, and had been committed to prison on three previous occasions since 2000. His driver’s license was suspended at the time of the current arrest.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years on count one, stayed an equivalent term on count two, imposed concurrent sentences for the remaining two counts and struck the three prior prison terms. The court awarded custody credits that included the time defendant had been in custody on a parole violation based on the current violations.

Defendant appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requested the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.

Defendant filed a supplemental letter brief, in which he resurrects his speedy trial claim. We briefly recite the facts relating to this claim.

The day after defendant’s release under his brother’s name on the current offenses, he was arrested in another county for a parole violation. He received a one-year sentence on the parole violation, which was based on his DUI arrest. Later in the month, an arrest warrant was executed and a complaint was filed by the district attorney’s office in the current matter. Warrant checks were run on defendant at various times during his incarceration on the parole violation, but no “holds” turned up on the current case until shortly before he was due to be released on the parole violation.

Defendant filed a speedy trial motion, claiming he was prejudiced by the failure to notify him earlier of the pending charges because he had lost the opportunity to obtain a concurrent sentence as well as losing half-time credit that he would suffer while he was “re-housed and re-classified” in state prison.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion, ruling that, as defendant was entitled to custody credits for time served on a parole violation for the same conduct, he was not prejudiced from the delay, and the loss of half-time credit was too speculative.

In defendant’s supplemental brief, he contends the trial court’s ruling on his speedy trial motion was erroneous. However, “the cases are virtually uniform in holding that a claim of speedy trial violation--whether statutory or constitutional--does not survive a guilty plea” (People v. Hernandez (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357), and obtaining a certificate of probable cause does not render the issue cognizable on appeal. (Id. at p. 1361, citing People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9.)

Defendant has not sought any relief on appeal other than to suggest his conviction should be “[o]verturn[ed].” As he entered pleas of no contest in this matter, such relief is foreclosed.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur RAYE, Acting P.J., BUTZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Robinson

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Sep 9, 2008
No. C055002 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Robinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN ROBINSON, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Sep 9, 2008

Citations

No. C055002 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2008)