People v. Miranda CA2/4
Filed 1/8/16 P. v. Miranda CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B261306
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA061835) v.
JERRY MARTIN MIRANDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant Jerry Martin Miranda appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.)1 The trial court found him ineligible for resentencing because the current offenses were committed while armed with a firearm. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).) Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), now see § 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 1), two counts of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a), counts 2 & 3), and one count of possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, count 4); he also admitted allegations that he had suffered four prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(k), 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)) and served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He received a state prison sentence of 25 years to life. We affirmed the judgment of conviction in a prior appeal. (People v. Miranda (Mar. 23, 2005, B171716) [nonpub.opn].) In November 2012, the electorate 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. The initiative allowed those serving a life sentence for a third felony that is not defined as serious or violent to petition for recall of sentence and resentencing. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. The People argued that defendant’s current offenses do not qualify for resentencing based on the firearm disqualification provision: an offense does not qualify for resentencing if, during the commission of that offense, the defendant “used a firearm, was armed with a firearm
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)