People v. Stewart CA2/3

Filed 2/5/15 P. v. Stewart CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B257751

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A780300) v.

RONNIE A. STEWART,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed.

California Appellate Project, John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

Defendant Ronnie Stewart appeals from an order granting in part, and denying in part, his request to vacate his criminal conviction and correct the abstract of judgment. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND In 1987, defendant was convicted by a jury of eight counts of forcible oral copulation in violation of Penal Code1 section 288a, subdivision (c), one count of forcible rape in violation of section 261, subdivision (2), and one count of sexual battery in violation of section 243.4.2 The charged weapons sentence enhancements under section 12022.3 were found to be true. Defendant was sentenced to 22 years in state prison. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1989. Defendant asserts he was released from prison in 1998. Defendant filed several habeas corpus petitions in 2007 and 2008 which alleged, among other things, he was labeled a “child molester” although his crimes had nothing to do with children. These petitions were denied by the trial court. However, at defendant’s request, in March 2010 the court ordered that the abstract of judgment be amended to delete the words “under 14” from the judgment. In addition, the court requested that the Department of Justice omit “all references to oral copulation with a child under 14 from the CII rap sheet.” The court made a similar order in July 2013. In January 2013, the court denied defendant’s most recent petition which alleged he was entitled to a new trial based on “triple jeopardy.” The court explained that the judgment had been previously corrected, defendant’s claims were “untimely, successive and duplicative,” and some of the claims should have been raised on direct appeal. On April 16, 2014, defendant filed a three-page handwritten document titled “Motion to Vacate the P.C. 288A(c) Counts Against 20 Year Old [M. G.]” On June 5,