People v. Moore CA2/2

Filed 1/20/16 P. v. Moore CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B265790

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA057591) v.

LAMOND DEE MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:* Defendant and appellant Lamond Dee Moore (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing under Propositions 36 and 47. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. After defendant was notified of his counsel’s brief he filed his own supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s contentions. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment. On March 27, 2015, the trial court denied the resentencing petition without hearing, upon finding that defendant’s conviction did not qualify for resentencing under

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) or subdivision (f).1 In a letter to the superior court filed June 23, 2015, defendant represented that his notice of appeal was mailed from prison on April 28, 2015, and returned unopened. The superior court filed defendant’s letter as the notice of appeal, and we deem it to be timely. More than 10 years ago, defendant was convicted of making criminal threats (violation of section 422) attempting to dissuade a witness (violation of section 136.1) and misdemeanor vandalism (violation of section 594, subdivision (a)), with findings that he had sustained four prior felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), as well as section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant was sentenced to a total prison term of 90 years to life, and a concurrent jail sentence for the misdemeanor offense. To qualify for resentencing under section 1170.18, subdivision (a) or (f), the petitioner’s convictions must have been for felonies that would be classified as misdemeanors if the statute been in effect at the time of the offense. Defendant’s supplemental brief does not demonstrate that the superior court erred in finding that he did not qualify for relief under Proposition 47. Nor does defendant claim that he qualified for relief under Proposition 36.2 Instead, defendant contends: (1) that his original sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (2) that the sentencing court erred in running two second-strike terms consecutively and should have instead dismissed one of his prior strike convictions; and (3) that the prior felony convictions used to impose the second-strike terms in this case were reduced to misdemeanors on April 15, 2015, thus no longer qualifying as strikes under the Three Strikes law.3