People v. Suarez CA2/3

Filed 1/25/16 P. v. Suarez CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B264601

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA068584) v.

NEWTON SUAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an 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. _____________________

In 2012 defendant and appellant, Newton Suarez, was found guilty of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse and dissuading a witness, with true findings of deadly weapon use, infliction of great bodily injury and prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, 136.1, 12022, 12022.7, 667, subds. (b)-(i)).1 The trial court sentenced Suarez to a “Three Strikes” term of 64 years to life in state prison. (The judgment was affirmed on appeal in People v. Suarez (Oct. 29, 2013, B240911) [nonpub. opn.].) On July 21, 2014, following the passage of Proposition 36,2 Suarez, acting in propria persona, filed a petition for recall of his sentence. On July 29, 2014, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that Suarez was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 36 because one of his current convictions (spousal battery) included an enhancement finding for use of a deadly weapon. Suarez did not appeal this ruling. Instead, on March 3, 2015, he filed a second petition for recall of his sentence. On March 16, 2015, the trial court denied this petition on the ground it had already denied Suarez’s first petition. The court explained that Suarez’s proper remedy was to file a notice of appeal. Suarez thereafter filed a notice of appeal on May 11, 2015. We appointed counsel to represent Suarez on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Suarez and notified Suarez that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Suarez has filed a supplemental brief.3