People v. Davis CA1/2

Filed 9/17/24 P. v. Davis CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, A169699 & A170137 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco County DON ANGELO DAVIS, Super. Ct. No. CR14031702) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2015, Don Angelo Davis was convicted of first degree residential robbery (Penal Code,1 § 211), and other offenses. He received a third-strike sentence of 60 years to life that included enhancements for prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Section 1172.75 mandates resentencing of persons subjected to such enhancements before 2020. Davis filed a resentencing petition that the trial court granted in part, imposing a determinate sentence of 21 years. Davis appealed. His appellate counsel filed a brief stating he had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to pursue. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231 (Delgadillo).) We notified Davis of his right to file a supplemental brief (id. at pp. 231–232), which he did. We have

1 All statutory citations are to the Penal Code. After Davis filed his petition in 2022 under what was then section 1171.1, the Legislature renumbered the provision without substantive change to section 1172.75. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.) We cite to section 1172.75 for consistency’s sake.

1

evaluated his arguments and found none of merit.C:\\Users\\lfischer\\Documents\\Cleaning (step 1)\\h - co_footnote_B00012077441480_1 (Id. at p. 232 [if appellant submits supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief”].) We thus affirm the judgment, though we remand for the clerk to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. BACKGROUND Underlying Charges, Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal2 In 2015, Davis was charged with first degree residential robbery (§ 211), first degree residential burglary (§ 459), and possessing a firearm as a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The information alleged that Davis personally used a firearm in committing the robbery and burglary (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and that he had two strikes (§ 667, subd. (c) & (d); § 1170.12, subd. (b)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and nine prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury found Davis guilty on all counts, and the jury or trial court found true all enhancement allegations. The trial court imposed a third-strike sentence composed of an upper term of 6 years for first degree residential robbery, plus a 10-year enhancement for firearm use (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), two 5-year enhancements for prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and seven 1-year enhancements for prior prison sentences (§ 667.5, subd. (b)),3 yielding an indeterminate term of 33 years to life. To that, the court added the