People v. Clay CA2/7

Filed 3/9/15 P. v. Clay CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B259717

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA075790) v.

ROY DYCRUS CLAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elden Fox, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________

In 2010 Clay was charged in an amended felony complaint with one count of automobile burglary and two counts of grand theft of personal property with special allegations he had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions (burglary in 1977 and robbery in 1981) within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served 12 separate prison terms for felonies (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Clay pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. In 2011 Clay waived his rights to a preliminary hearing and to a jury trial, entered an open plea of guilty to the charges and admitted all the alleged prior felony convictions. The sentencing hearing was continued several times. By the time sentencing occurred on May 4, 2012, Clay had been convicted and sentenced in another case to a four-year state prison term. After the prosecutor agreed to the trial court granting Clay’s motion to dismiss his 1977 burglary conviction as a prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero); Pen. Code, § 1385), the court sentenced Clay as a second strike offender to an aggregate state prison term of nine years eight months for automobile burglary (count 1) and grand theft of personal property (count 3) to be served concurrently with the four-year sentence imposed in the other case. The court stayed sentencing for grand theft of personal property (count 2) pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and dismissed the remaining prior prison term enhancements. The court awarded Clay 166 days of presentence custody credit, ordered him to pay restitution to each of the victims, imposed a $2,160 victim restitution fine, imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine and imposed other mandatory fines, fees and assessments. Clay did not appeal from the judgment or move to withdraw his plea. On July 20, 2014 Clay, representing himself, filed a motion to correct an unauthorized sentence and for other relief. The trial court found Clay had failed to show good cause and denied the motion. Clay appealed from this postjudgment order. We appointed counsel to represent Clay on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On January 26, 2015 we advised Clay he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or