People v. Hearon CA2/4

Filed 2/18/14 P. v. Hearon CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249335

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA251403) v.

STEVE HEARON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Dee A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

In the underlying action, the trial court denied appellant Steve Hearon’s motion under Penal Code section 1170.126, which permits specified defendants sentenced as three strike offenders to be resentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act).1 After an appeal was noticed from that ruling, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude that no arguable issues exist and, accordingly, affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In February 2004, a three-count information was filed, charging appellant in count 1 with making criminal threats (§ 422), in count 2 with battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and in count 3 with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Accompanying the charges were allegations that appellant had suffered three prior strikes under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and three prior felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that appellant approached James Collins, who was speaking on a public telephone, and punched him with both hands, thereby causing factures and other injuries to Collins’s face and nose. A