People v. Sowells CA2/5

Filed 3/16/16 P. v. Sowells CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B267408

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA020987) v.

MAURICE SOWELLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1995, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Maurice Sowells of possession of a short-barreled shotgun (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)1), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The trial court found true the allegations that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on each of his convictions, but stayed execution of sentence on defendant’s section 12021 convictions and his Health and Safety Code section 11359 conviction pursuant to section 654. In defendant’s appeal from that judgment, we ordered stricken one of defendant’s section 12021 convictions, and remanded the matter for the trial court to decide whether to exercise its discretion to strike one or both of defendant’s prior conviction allegations. Following the passage of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, defendant filed a petition requesting recall of his sentences pursuant to section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was ineligible for relief because he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offenses within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iii) and section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2). Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition. We affirm.