P. v. Guggenmos CA4/3

Filed 8/26/15 P. v Guggenmos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050648

v. (Super. Ct. No. 97NF1073)

CHRISTOPHER JAMES GUGGENMOS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Elizabeth M. Carino, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Christopher James Guggenmos is currently serving a sentence of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law. He contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. However, because appellant was armed with a firearm during his commitment offense, he is not eligible for resentencing. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Knowing appellant was wanted for violating probation, the police contacted him in an Anaheim alley where he was working on his mother’s car. After confirming his identity, they searched the car and found a loaded revolver underneath one of the seats. The gun was located only inches from where appellant was contacted. The police also found 16 rounds of ammunition in appellant’s nearby toolbox. Appellant admitted knowing the gun was in the car but claimed it belonged to his stepfather. Unfortunately, his mother told the police the stepfather was in prison and never possessed such a gun. Appellant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a).2 He was also found to have suffered three prior strike convictions, all of which stemmed from his use of a gun. After denying appellant’s request to strike his prior convictions, the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison under the Three Strikes law. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Guggenmos (Sept. 27, 1999, G023032) [nonpub. opn.].) After Proposition 36 was passed in 2012, appellant petitioned to have his sentence recalled and be resentenced as a second strike offender. There is no dispute that, standing alone, his commitment offense – possessing a firearm as a felon – is not a disqualifying offense under Proposition 36. However, the court determined appellant was not eligible for relief because he was armed with a firearm during that offense.