P. v. Maultsby

1
Filed 3/16/10 P. v. Maultsby CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM FREDERICK MAULTSBY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C060532
(Super. Ct. No. 08868)
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
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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)
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
SIMS , Acting P. J.
We concur:
HULL , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

-- 3 of 3 --