People v. Thomas CA2/6

Filed 7/25/24 P. v. Thomas CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334298 (Super. Ct. No. 2015004140) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

GREGORY ROMEL THOMAS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory Romel Thomas, Jr., appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate an unauthorized sentence. Thomas’s appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal and requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 (Delgadillo). Thomas filed a brief, raising several contentions. Because we do not have jurisdiction to decide this appeal, we dismiss it.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2019, a jury convicted Thomas of assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c).) He admitted three qualifying strike offenses—two Oklahoma robbery convictions and one federal conviction for conspiracy. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. Four years after sentencing, Thomas filed an in pro per motion to vacate his sentence. He alleged his sentence was unauthorized because (1) two of his prior strike convictions arose out of a single act against the same victim in the same course of conduct and thus one strike was required to be stricken, and (2) his prior conviction for robbery in Oklahoma could not be considered a strike because a robbery conviction in California requires different elements. The trial court denied his motion. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion. (People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 636-637 (King).) The court also found that Thomas failed to allege an unauthorized sentence and that his motion failed on the merits. DISCUSSION When an appellate counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal from the denial of a postconviction request for relief, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) We give the defendant the opportunity to file his or her own supplemental brief and we then evaluate any specific arguments raised. (Id. at pp. 231-232.) Thomas has submitted supplemental briefing. However, we lack jurisdiction to decide his claims on appeal. (King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634.)