California Court of Appeal Jan 8, 2014 No. E059381Unpublished
Filed 1/8/14 P. v. French CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059381
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB12597)
LEROY FRENCH, III, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Leroy French, III, appeals after the trial court denied his
petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act).
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1996, defendant was charged with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and
does the same. One of defendant’s prior strike convictions was for second degree murder
(Pen. Code, § 187), a disqualifying strike offense. The trial court properly determined
that defendant was not eligible for resentencing under the Reform Act.
In his personal supplemental brief, defendant raises issues with respect to the
competence of his trial attorney at the time he pleaded guilty in 1996. These questions
should have been raised on appeal, or on a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, after
that conviction; the time has long since passed to raise matters which could, and should,
have been raised then. The sole matter within the scope of appeal at present is the trial
court’s ruling on defendant’s petition to recall his sentence. The additional matters
defendant raises are not cognizable in this appeal.
4
DISPOSITION
Defendant was not eligible to recall his three strikes sentence. The order denying
his petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
RICHLI J.
MILLER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act because his prior conviction for second degree murder constitutes a disqualifying strike offense.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for recall of sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act.
Whether claims regarding the competence of trial counsel from a 1996 conviction are cognizable in an appeal from a petition for resentencing.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“One of defendant’s prior strike convictions was for second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), a disqualifying strike offense. The trial court properly determined that defendant was not eligible for resentencing under the Reform Act.”
“Defendant was not eligible to recall his three strikes sentence.”