People v. Hill CA2/4

Filed 12/4/15 P. v. Hill CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B263135

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA078617) v.

TONY LEE HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________________

Defendant Tony Lee Hill appeals from an order dismissing his petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.)1 The order is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second degree robbery and found to have suffered nine prior serious or violent felony convictions or juvenile adjudications. (§§ 211, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) He received a state prison sentence of 25 years to life. He appealed from the judgment of conviction, which this court affirmed in 2013. (People v. Hill (Nov. 4, 2013, B243919) [nonpub. opn.].) In November 2012, the voters adopted Proposition 36, which amended the Three Strikes law by limiting the imposition of an indeterminate life sentence to those defendants whose third felony is defined as serious or violent under sections 667.5 or 1192.7. The initiative allowed those serving a life sentence for a third felony that is not defined by those sections as serious or violent to petition for a recall of sentence and request resentencing. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) Defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing in September 2013. The trial court found him ineligible for resentencing because robbery is defined as a violent felony by subdivision (c)(9) of section 667.5. His petition was dismissed with prejudice, and this appeal followed. Defendant’s attorney filed a Wende2 brief, stating that he had thoroughly reviewed the record to determine whether it contained any arguable issues. We issued a letter directing counsel to send the record and a copy of the opening brief to defendant, and inviting defendant to submit a supplemental brief or letter. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, which we have read and considered.