People v. Surico CA2/3

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Surico CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B248948

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA073764) v.

CHRISTOPHER SURICO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Candace Beason, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark S. Givens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant, Christopher Surico, appeals from the trial court’s April 24, 2013 post-judgment order denying his motion to modify his sentence in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GA073764. We affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an information filed on August 11, 2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GA073764, Surico was charged with two counts of “first degree burglary, person present,” in violation of Penal Code section 459.1 It was further alleged Surico had suffered a prior conviction for burglary in case No. BA089473 within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), had previously suffered a conviction for the serious felony of burglary within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and had suffered three prior convictions for burglary for which he served prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Trial on the matter was bifurcated and, on June 29, 2009 a jury found Surico guilty of both counts of burglary.2 After the jury was dismissed, a court trial was held with regard to Surico’s prior convictions and prison terms. The trial court found true the allegation Surico had sustained a prior burglary conviction in case No. BA089473 within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, found true the allegation Surico had suffered a prior conviction for burglary within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and found true the allegations Surico had suffered convictions for burglary for which he served prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) in case No. BA089473 and two other superior court cases. In July 2009, before the trial court imposed sentence, Surico’s trial counsel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. At a hearing held on July 24, 2009, defense counsel