People v. Maultsby

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM FREDERICK MAULTSBY…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Mar 16, 2010

No. C060532 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2010)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM FREDERICK MAULTSBY, Defendant and Appellant. C060532 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yolo March 16, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 08868

SIMS, Acting P. J.

On January 13, 2008, as defendant William Fredrick Maultsby left a Wal-Mart store, he set off a theft detector and was detained by an asset protection employee. Defendant removed a package of nicotine gum from his jacket. At the employee’s request, defendant stepped through the detector and again set it off. Defendant removed another package of nicotine gum from his jacket. The two packages of gum were the store’s merchandise and worth $83.56. Defendant did not have a receipt.

A jury convicted defendant of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484).¹ Prior to trial, defendant admitted a prior felony conviction for robbery in 1991 within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law and admitted prior theft convictions, including the 1991 robbery, for purposes of section 666. Sentenced to state prison, defendant appeals, contending his admission to the strike prior was obtained absent complete advisements (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 863.) Defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In People v. Fulton (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1230, this court recently decided that a defendant could not attack the validity of his admission of a prior prison term allegation without a certificate of probable cause. (Id. at p. 1237.)

Defendant makes two arguments as to why Fulton does not control his case.

First, he contends Fulton is wrongly decided. We do not agree.

Second, he contends Fulton is distinguishable, because in Fulton the admission of the prior prison term occurred in connection with a plea bargain, whereas in the instant case, there was no plea bargain. However, in Fulton, before discussing the plea bargain, we held, “We conclude that Penal Code section 1237.5 applies to an enhancement allegation to which a defendant has entered a plea.” (People v. Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 1237.) Later, we said, “Further, defendant is trifling with the courts by attempting to better the bargain on appeal. [Citation.]” (Fulton, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 1238, italics added.) Thus, the fact that the admission of the prior prison term in Fulton occurred in a plea bargain was a “further” reason for affirming the judgment.

Fulton controls this case.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: HULL, J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.