People v. Franklin CA3

Filed 10/9/24 P. v. Franklin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100137

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 69957)

v.

TIMOTHY PRINCE FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Timothy Prince Franklin appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing, purportedly brought under Penal Code section 1170.18,1 and Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 600) (Stats. 2023, ch. 446). Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising numerous contentions. We have independently reviewed the arguments defendant raises in his supplemental brief and conclude they are without merit. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 69957 In Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 69957 (case No. 69957) (the case at issue in this appeal), defendant was charged in 1984 with first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling. (§ 459.) He pleaded no contest to the charge and was placed on four years’ probation, with 11 months in county jail. Before probation expired, defendant in 1987 pleaded guilty in Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 81131 to violating Health and Safety Code, section 11350. In October 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, purportedly pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 6002 and Proposition 47/section 1170.18.3 Defendant argued that he entered an illegal plea because he was innocent of burglary. According to defendant, there was no factual basis for the plea. Defendant further argued he had actually been sentenced to second degree burglary because the sentencing triad for first degree burglary

2 Assembly Bill No. 600, which went into effect January 1, 2024, allows courts to recall a sentence and initiate resentencing at any time if the sentencing laws applicable at the time of sentencing have changed. (§ 1172.1, subd (a)(1).) The court may do so on its own motion, or at any time upon the recommendation of multiple officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Ibid.) “A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).) 3 Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), reduced certain drug-related and theft-related offenses that previously were felonies or “wobblers” to misdemeanors. (§ 1170.18, added by Prop. 47.) Specifically, section 1170.18 permits recall and resentencing for those convicted under former sections 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, 666, and Health and Safety Code sections 11350, 11357, and 11377. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Defendant was not convicted under any of these statutes.