People v. Ross CA2/8

Filed 8/28/14 P. v. Ross CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B255528

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA285996) v.

CHARLES ANTHONY ROSS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Charles Anthony Ross appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for resentencing and “post-conviction Romero[1] motion.” His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2005, appellant was convicted of robbery and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 211;2 former § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law to an indeterminate term of 35 years to life. We affirmed his conviction in 2007. (People v. Ross (May 10, 2007, B188587) [nonpub. opn.].) Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126) was passed in November 2012. Appellant filed two petitions in 2012 for a writ of habeas corpus seeking recall of his third strike sentence under Proposition 36 and dismissal of his strike prior convictions. (§ 1285.) The court denied his requests. It found appellant ineligible for recall under Proposition 36 because his current conviction for robbery was for a serious and/or violent felony and therefore he was statutorily excluded under the recall provisions. Subsequently, appellant wrote two letters to the court asking the court to strike his prior strikes and sentence him to a term other than life under the Three Strikes law. Neither letter is part of the record on appeal, but the court summarizes his requests in its memorandum opinion ruling on the requests, dated February 4, 2014. The court held there was no basis to reconsider appellant’s request for resentencing or to grant a postconviction Romero motion. The court reiterated appellant’s conviction for a serious and/or violent felony disqualified him for resentencing under Proposition 36. Moreover, the court held it did not have authority to reconsider the sentencing court’s ruling on appellant’s original Romero motion, and besides, the sentencing court properly exercised