People v. Israel CA6

Filed 4/14/15 P. v. Israel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039971 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC440664)

v.

MAX LEE ISRAEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Max Lee Israel appeals from an order reducing his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126,1 the resentencing provision of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to consider a Romero2 motion to vacate his prior strike convictions. As set forth below, we will affirm.

1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).

BACKGROUND3 On April 6, 2005, a jury convicted defendant of one count of carjacking (§ 215), one count of vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); § 666.5), and one count of evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh.Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation that defendant was armed with a firearm when he committed the carjacking (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 26, 2005, the trial court denied a Romero motion brought by defendant. That same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 75 years to life consecutive to 10 years, as follows: a term of 25 years to life for the carjacking, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the vehicle theft, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the reckless evasion, and a consecutive term of 10 years for the two prior serious felony convictions. Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction, making claims of insufficient evidence, evidentiary error, and improper imposition of consecutive sentences. In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. On November 20, 2012, defendant filed a pro se “Request for New Sentencing Under Proposition 36.” The trial court appointed the public defender to represent defendant on the resentencing matter. The district attorney opposed resentencing, arguing that defendant was ineligible for resentencing due to his carjacking conviction.