People v. Howard CA2/4

Filed 7/22/14 P. v. Howard CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B253298

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA040412) v.

CLARENCE HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Clarence Howard appeals from an order denying his petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, §1170.126).1 His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no appealable issues. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112–114, we describe the relevant facts and explain our reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced in appellant’s supplemental brief. Appellant’s conviction and sentence were subject to a previous appeal. (People v. Howard (Sept. 24, 1996, B093301) [nonpub. opn.].) As we explained in our decision in that appeal, appellant and an accomplice robbed a man of his wallet and truck on November 8, 1994. During the incident, the accomplice threatened the victim with a gun. The police promptly located the truck, arrested appellant, and found a gun in his possession. The accomplice escaped. In 1995, appellant was convicted of carjacking in which a principal was armed with a firearm (§§ 215, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) were found to be true. Appellant was originally sentenced to 27 years to life in prison for the carjacking under the Three Strikes law, and to a consecutive 24-month-to-life term for the firearm possession. The court imposed an additional five-year term under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and two one-year terms under sections 667.5 and 12022, subdivision (a)(1). In case No. B093301, we rejected appellant’s arguments that sections 654 and 667, subdivision (c)(7) prohibited the separate punishment for the firearm possession count, that a five-year enhancement could not be imposed in addition to the indeterminate term under the Three Strikes law, that appellant’s 1980 convictions of robbery and attempted robbery were not strikes because they predated the enactment of the Three