People v. Craig CA6

── People v. Craig CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Craig CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H053185 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2412379) v. DRAKE ALAN CRAIG, Defendant and Appellant. In 2024, appellant Drake Alan Craig pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code1, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange, the trial court indicated a sentence of 120 days in county jail, to be served in the voluntary home detention program. At sentencing, the trial court stated it would deviate from its previous indicated sentence based on new information it had received from the People and indicated a higher sentence of 10 months in county jail, while offering Craig the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Craig chose not to withdraw his plea, and the trial court subsequently sentenced him to its new indicated sentence of 10 months in county jail. On appeal, Craig contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by refusing to honor the terms of his plea agreement, which he reasonably relied upon and complied with in full. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background2 On July 28, 2024, Craig was gathered with several people in a Target parking lot on Capitol Expressway in San Jose. There were numerous vehicles in the group, many of which were parked illegally. Police officers subsequently arrived on scene in response to a 911 call regarding a possible “side-show” or a possible fight. After the police detained several individuals, including Craig, two men fled in a vehicle, and the passenger, Clayton Johnson, then “foot-bailed” and continued to flee on foot from officers. After Johnson was caught, a search of his path of flight on foot revealed a loaded handgun with a large capacity magazine. The officers then searched the remaining detainees and their vehicles. A search of a Cadillac SUV, where Craig had been a passenger, revealed four additional loaded handguns, with two of the handguns located under passenger seats of the vehicle, and the remaining two handguns located in the hatchback trunk area of the vehicle. Craig had been observed with two other individuals rummaging in the trunk area when officers initially arrived on scene. Further investigation of social media postings and photos taken from earlier on the same day indicated that Craig had been photographed with Johnson; these photos depicted Johnson with a large bulge in his pants pocket consistent with the handgun containing the large capacity magazine. B. Procedural History 1. Charges and Change of Plea On July 31, 2024, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office filed a complaint charging Craig and six co-defendants with numerous firearm-related offenses stemming from the July 24, 2024 incident. Craig was charged with possession of a 2 As Craig entered his plea before a preliminary hearing was held, we draw the pertinent facts from the People’s sentencing memorandum filed in anticipation of Craig’s sentencing hearing. 2 firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 8); carrying a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle