People v. Parish CA2/3

Filed 8/25/15 P. v. Parish CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B262517

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA026231) v.

MICHAEL JAMES PARISH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed.

Daniel Milchiker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Michael James Parish appeals from an order denying his petition for a recall of sentence after the trial court sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life plus three years, following his conviction by jury of attempted second degree robbery, having suffered two prior felony convictions and four prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.18, subd. (a), 664, 211, 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b).) We affirm the order denying appellant’s petition for a recall of sentence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 21, 1996, a jury convicted appellant as previously indicated.1 On July 26, 1996, the trial court imposed the above sentence, including a prison term of 25 years to life pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law for attempted second degree robbery. On January 26, 2015, appellant, in pro per, filed in the present case (superior court case No. GA026231) a petition for a recall of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a).2 However, the preprinted form used by appellant did not allege appellant was “currently serving a sentence” (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) for attempted second degree robbery. The form failed to distinguish clearly between (1) a conviction for which a defendant was “currently serving a sentence” (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) and (2) other prior convictions.3 The result was the form, as completed by appellant, conflated these two categories, and thus erroneously suggested he was “currently serving a sentence” (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) for felonies that