People v. Bess CA4/3

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Bess CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049721

v. (Super. Ct. No. 96CF3190)

DANIEL EDWARD BESS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Warren Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 1997, a jury found defendant Daniel Edward Bess guilty of robbery while armed with a firearm, plus second degree burglary and receiving stolen property. The trial court subsequently determined he had suffered two prior convictions for robbery and imposed two consecutive indeterminate terms of life imprisonment under the “Three Strikes” law for the robbery and the burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, all further statutory references are to this code.) It stayed punishment on the receiving stolen property charge. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Bess (Mar. 30, 1999, G021682).) In 2014, defendant petitioned to have his indeterminate life term for the burglary conviction recalled and to be resentenced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (§§ 667, 1170.12, 1170.126; Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012) text of Prop. 36, § 6, pp. 109-110 (hereafter Reform Act).) The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the petition, concluding defendant was not eligible for relief. He appeals from this order. We conclude the trial court’s ruling was correct and affirm.