People v. Starr CA2/8

Filed 2/5/14 P. v. Starr CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B248666

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA210934) v.

DARLO STARR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven R. Vansicklen, Judge. Appeal dismissed; writ petition denied.

Darlo Starr, in pro. per.; and Suzan E. Hier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

In 2001, a jury convicted defendant Darlo Starr of one count of burglary and one count of attempted burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664/459). Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on his priors, and the trial court found that defendant had committed four prior strikes, and had served six prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant’s Romero1 motion was denied, and defendant was sentenced to a term of 70 years to life in prison, consisting of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the burglary and attempted burglary, plus 20 years for the prison term enhancements. Defendant appealed, contending the jury’s verdict was tainted by exposure to inadmissible evidence, and the trial court erred when it denied his Romero motion. This court found no merit in defendant’s claims, and affirmed his judgment of conviction. (People v. Starr (Apr. 15, 2002, B150667) [nonpub. opn.].) On September 12, 2011, defendant filed a habeas petition in this court, contending his sentence was cruel and unusual, and that he was entitled to release under Penal Code section 1170, subdivisions (d) and (e).2 In our order denying his petition, we noted that defendant failed to make the required showing that he first sought relief in the Superior Court, or that the Board of Parole Hearings had declined to recommend his release. (In re Darlo Starr (Sept. 29, 2011, B235798).) On March 12, 2013, defendant filed a “Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Vobis” in the trial court. The petition argued that defendant’s sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, because he did not receive a jury trial of his prior offenses. Defendant also requested appointment of counsel. The trial court denied the petition, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The trial court also found, if it were to treat the petition as one for habeas corpus, that the