People v. Bradford CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 2015 No. C074225Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, finding no arguable error in the trial court's determination that the defendant was ineligible for relief.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act”

“Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”

Filed 1/15/15 P. v. Bradford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074225

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 96F00581)

ARTNEALIOUS CORTEZ BRADFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Artnealious Cortez Bradford appeals from an order denying a petition to recall his so-called “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code section 1170.126.1 (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.) Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act because he had previously

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

been convicted of kidnapping with force and intent to commit rape, and forcible assault with intent to commit rape. (See §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(I), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iv)(I), 1170.126, subd. (e)(3); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (b).) Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment (order) is affirmed.

People v. Bradford CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074225

ARTNEALIOUS CORTEZ BRADFORD,

RAYE , P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BLEASE , J.

NICHOLSON , J.

AI Brief