People v. Beadle CA2/6

Filed 8/20/25 P. v. Beadle 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B338770 (Super. Ct. No. NA105727) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

JEFFERY BEADLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeffery Beadle appeals after the trial court denied his Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge and declined to resentence him under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 We conclude the court’s order is not appealable and will dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, a jury convicted appellant of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 261.5, subd. (c), 12022.7, subd. (a); count 1), human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(1); count 2),

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

pimping a minor 16 years of age or older (§ 266h, subd. (b)(1); count 3), pandering by encouraging a minor over the age of 16 (§ 266i, subd. (b)(1); count 4), and seven counts of dissuading a victim or witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1); counts 5- 11). Appellant admitted that he had prior strike and serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (d), 1170.12, subds. (a) & (b)) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 47 years and four months in state prison. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Beadle (Nov. 21, 2019, B289933) [nonpub. opn.].) In April 2024, appellant filed a request for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1. Along with the request, appellant submitted a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenge of Judge Laura Laesecke, who presided over his trial. In an ex parte minute order, Judge Laesecke denied the peremptory challenge as untimely and “decline[d] to resentence” appellant. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Appellant’s counsel requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. We decline this invitation and instead respond to the arguments appellant raises in his supplemental brief. (Id., at pp. 231-232.) In his supplemental brief, appellant acknowledges his “motion was procedurally unauthorized under [section 1172.1, subdivision (c)].” He nonetheless contends the order is