People v. Revis CA2/6

Filed 7/29/25 P. v. Revis CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B338238 (Super. Ct. No. YA060244-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANDRE LAMAR REVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Andre Lamar Revis seeks to appeal the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because an order denying a habeas corpus petition is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. (See Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 836.) In 2004, appellant committed a robbery at the Dragon Buffet restaurant in Inglewood on two different occasions while armed with a knife. He was convicted by jury of two counts of

second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant admitted suffering five prior felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and admitted two serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1). The trial court denied a motion to strike the prior convictions (§ 1385) and sentenced appellant to 70 years to life in state prison.2 We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (Revis, supra, B186193.) In March 2024, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging numerous grounds for relief. The trial court issued a written order summarily denying the petition. Appellant filed a notice of appeal as to that order. He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court, which we denied. (In re Andre Lamar Revis (May 22, 2024, B337612).) We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and acknowledging that the appeal was taken from a nonappealable order. Counsel nevertheless suggests this