People v. Pratt CA2/3

Filed 3/25/25 P. v. Pratt CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B338996

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA036565) v.

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Walton, Judge. Affirmed. Ryant Trimale Pratt, in pro. per.; and Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Ryant Pratt appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Pratt filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court erred in denying his petition. We consider Pratt’s contentions and affirm the trial court order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying crime We take the following facts from the opinion affirming Pratt’s convictions on direct appeal.2 (People v. Pratt (July 1, 1998, B111400) [nonpub. opn.].) “1. Facts. “Ahmad Amer owned the 95 Cent Plus Store. On October 27, 1994, at approximately 7 p.m., the store was robbed. Amer was not present at the time; he returned to the store shortly thereafter. When Amer learned of the robbery, he became angry and began yelling.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Pratt’s petition was filed pursuant to former section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered to section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 2 We refer to the Court of Appeal opinion only “for background purposes and to provide context” for Pratt’s arguments. (People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 978, fn. 2, disapproved of on another ground in People v. Patton (Mar. 3, 2025, S279670) __ Cal.5th __ [2025 WL 666005].) We do not rely on the facts in the opinion to review the trial court’s determination of Pratt’s eligibility for resentencing at the prima facie stage. (Flores, at p. 988.)