People v. Ward CA5

Filed 3/16/15 P. v. Ward CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067729 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F00644245-3) v.

TOMMY LEWIS WARD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Ivan P. Marrs and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

On March 31, 2000, defendant Tommie Lewis Ward was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)1 (hereafter former § 12021(a)(1)), reenacted as § 29800, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). On November 6, 2012, the electorate passed Proposition 36, amending the Three Strikes law to permit the recall of some sentences imposed under the Three Strikes law pursuant to the newly added section 1170.126. On June 3, 2013, defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126. On June 21, 2013, the trial court found defendant statutorily ineligible for resentencing due to his conviction under former section 12021(a)(1). Thus, the court denied the petition. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his petition to recall the sentence.2 We affirm the trial court’s order. FACTS On June 21, 2013, the court ruled on defendant’s petition to recall the sentence pursuant to section 1170.126 as follows:

“This court therefore concludes that those individuals, such as defendant, who were convicted of offenses involving the possession of firearms or deadly weapons are not eligible for resentencing. Defendant Ward’s current offense (third strike) was for a violation of … Section 12021, subdivision (a) (1), commonly referred to as felon in possession of a firearm. Given that conviction, which establishes that the defendant was convicted of an offense involving the possession of a firearm, this court concludes he is statutorily ineligible for resentencing. (… § 1170.126, su[b]d. (f).)”