People v. Rells CA2/3

Filed 11/12/15 P. v. Rells CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B264020

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA034242-01) v.

JUANCHO LOPEZ RELLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed. Tyrone A. Sandoval, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

On July 16, 1997, defendant Juancho Lopez Rells was convicted of second-degree burglary and three counts of first-degree murder under a felony-murder theory after he attempted to pass a fraudulent check to purchase a watch valued around $600 and subsequently led the police on a high-speed pursuit, during which he killed a family of three after he ran a red light and collided with the family’s car. (See People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860, 862-864.) On April 3, 2015, Rells filed a petition requesting resentencing of his burglary and murder convictions under the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). On April 22, 2015, the trial court denied Rells’ petition, finding that he was ineligible for resentencing because he had suffered a prior conviction for murder. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (i).) Rells timely appealed the court’s denial of his petition. We appointed counsel to represent Rells on appeal. After examining the record, Rells’ counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On September 14, 2015, we notified Rells he had 30 days to submit in writing any issues or contentions he wanted us to consider. Rells did not file a response. California voters passed Proposition 47 to “ ‘ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses . . . [and] to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crime.’ ” (People v. Perez (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 24, 28.) To further this purpose, Proposition 47 reduced certain nonviolent drug and theft offenses from straight felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors. (People v. Shabazz (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 308 (Shabazz).) A person currently serving a prison sentence for a felony conviction that would have been a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 had the act been in effect at the time the crime was committed may petition the trial court for a reduction of that sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a); see also Shabazz, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 308, fn. 2.) That person is ineligible for resentencing, however, if he has suffered a prior “super strike” conviction. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1170.18, subd. (i) & § 667, subd. (e)(1)(C)(iv); see also People v. Delapena (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1414,