People v. Bowden CA3

Filed 3/23/15 P. v. Bowden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073471

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08F10399)

LADON BOWDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ladon Bowden, an inmate serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i))1, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing under section 1170.126, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), which became effective November 7, 2012, after the voters approved Proposition 36 in the General Election of November 6, 2012. Section 1170.126 “created a postconviction release proceeding whereby a prisoner who is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed pursuant to the three strikes law for a crime that is not a serious or

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

violent felony and who is not disqualified, may have his or her sentence recalled and be sentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 167-168; italics added (Yearwood).) The trial court concluded defendant was not eligible for resentencing because his life sentence was imposed for a “serious felony,” i.e., willful infliction of corporal injury on a former cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) “in which the defendant personally inflict[ed] great bodily injury” on the victim. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); see § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).) The trial court also concluded defendant was not eligible for resentencing because he “intended to cause great bodily injury” to the victim. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii); see § 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).) On appeal, defendant challenges each of these conclusions, arguing (1) a great bodily injury enhancement was neither pled nor proven at trial, and (2) the trial court erroneously found he “‘intended to, and did in fact, inflict great bodily injury’” on the victim “based upon a selective reading alone of the facts from [our] opinion” affirming the underlying judgment. (People v. Bowden (Aug. 25, 2011, C064732) [nonpub. opn.] (Bowden).)2 We disagree and affirm. Defendant’s first argument is forfeited. While correctly observing the prosecution did not plead and prove a great bodily injury enhancement at trial, defendant presents no meaningful legal argument regarding whether section 1170.126 contains a pleading and proof requirement. (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error”].) In any event, we have already concluded