(Super. Ct. No. CRF10535710)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Arturo Gomez pleaded no contest to receipt of a stolen vehicle and transportation of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to a stipulated four-year prison term and granted a certificate of probable cause.
Defendant contends he should have been sentenced to jail rather than prison because prospective application of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, ch. 15) violated his federal and state equal protection rights.
But defendant was sentenced in this case after the effective date of the Realignment Act. There is no issue regarding prospective or retroactive application of the law. Instead, defendant stipulated to the prison sentence as part of his plea agreement, and the prison sentence was authorized by Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), because defendant was already sentenced to prison in a prior case.
We will affirm the judgment.
A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary given defendant's contention on appeal. Defendant pleaded no contest to receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a))*fn1 and transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to a stipulated four-year prison term consisting of a two-year term for the principle offense of receipt of a stolen vehicle, a consecutive one-year term for transportation of methamphetamine, and a consecutive one-year term for a conviction for felony vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) in Sacramento County case No. 11F02085. The trial court granted a certificate of probable cause.
At the sentencing hearing on December 5, 2011 (two months after the effective date of the Realignment Act), the trial judge asked counsel to address the penal disposition:
"THE COURT: I thought when I was reading through this that there was an issue of whether it was local county jail time or [prison] time, and if you would just make sure [the prosecutor] is up to speed on whatever the defense position is on that, that would be great.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I will. We actually clarified it when we ...