People v. Wright2/23/2005
Petition for rehearing denied March 25, 2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In two consolidated appeals, Winnfred Wright and Mary Campbell appeal from final judgments of conviction following pleas of guilty to multiple counts of felony child abuse. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).) We correct a clerical error in Campbell's abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgments in all other respects.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 8, 2002, the grand jury of Marin County returned an indictment charging Wright with the following felonies: count 1, murder of a child by the name of Ndigo (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)); count 2, involuntary manslaughter of Ndigo (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b)); count 3, felony child abuse of Ndigo (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), with an enhancement for circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death (Pen. Code, § 12022.95); counts 5 through 16, felony child abuse of 12 other specifically named children; and count 17, possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b)).
The same grand jury indictment charged Campbell with three offenses involving the child Ndigo: murder (count 1), manslaughter (count 2), and felony child abuse with an enhancement for circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death (count 3). In addition, the indictment charged her with five additional counts of felony child abuse of other specifically named children (counts 12 through 16) and possession of an assault weapon (count 17).
On December 16, 2002, the District Attorney of Marin County filed an amended indictment against Wright that retained the murder, manslaughter and weapons charges but charged only six counts of felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)): count 3, felony child abuse of Ndigo with an enhancement for circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death (Pen. Code, § 12022.95); count 4, felony child abuse of Nyala, Rashida, and Jaronimo; count 5, felony child abuse of Lemurian, Dnagual, Iternity, Kasha, Valositti, and Kaia; count 6, felony child abuse of Starchild; count 7, felony child abuse of Chikung; and count 8, felony child abuse of Sirius. Subsequently, Wright pled guilty to the six counts of felony child abuse and the district attorney dismissed the other charges pursuant to a negotiated disposition.
On the same date, the district attorney filed an amended indictment against Campbell that similarly reduced the number of counts of felony child abuse: count 3, felony child abuse of Ndigo with an enhancement for circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death; count 4, felony child abuse of Iternity, Kasha, and Valositti; count 5, felony child abuse of Chikung; and count 6, felony child abuse of Kaia. Campbell then pled guilty to the four counts of felony child abuse and the district attorney dismissed the other charges.
Both Wright and Campbell stipulated that the court could consider the transcript of the grand jury proceeding in determining a factual basis for their pleas of guilty. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the district attorney filed two sentencing statements approximately 100 pages in length that drew extensively from this source of information. When the sentencing of the two defendants came up for hearing on March 14, 2003, the court sentenced Wright to a term of 16 years and 8 months in state prison, consisting of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|