Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Clarke CA1/1

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A173138

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/11/26 P. v. Clarke CA1/1

              NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.

     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                               DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A173138
v.
(Del Norte County
NICOLE JUSTINE CLARKE, Super. Ct. No. CF249028)
Defendant and Appellant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION1
     The prosecution charged Nicole Justine Clarke with felony possession

of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1), felony
unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon (id., § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count
2), and misdemeanor public intoxication (id., § 647, subd. (f); count 3). As
part of a negotiated plea agreement, Clarke agreed to plead no contest to
count 1 in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence and the dismissal of the
remaining counts. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Clarke to 16 months
in prison pursuant to the plea agreement, with the sentence deemed served.
The minutes indicate the remaining counts were dismissed. At the hearing,

     1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,

§ 8.1) and recite only those facts necessary to resolve the limited issue before
us (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851).

                                                           1

however, the court did not mention the dismissal of the remaining counts,
and the abstract of judgment does not address those counts.
On appeal, Clarke contends the trial court erred by failing to dismiss
the remaining counts as required by the plea agreement. While she
acknowledges the minutes indicate the counts were dismissed, she notes the
court did not orally dismiss them at the hearing and asks us to remand the
matter with directions to dismiss counts 2 and 3. The Attorney General
agrees counts 2 and 3 should have been dismissed. Instead of remanding the
matter—and unnecessarily wasting limited resources—the Attorney General
suggests we modify the judgment to reflect the plea agreement. (Pen. Code,
§ 1260; People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337
[“ ‘ “A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and
the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound.” ’ ”].) We accept the
Attorney General’s concession and suggestion.
DISPOSITION
We modify the judgment to reflect the dismissal of counts 2 and 3. In
all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

                                   2
                             _________________________
                             LANGHORNE WILSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

SMILEY, J.

People v. Clarke / A173138

                         3