People v. Oakley CA3

Filed 5/4/16 P. v. Oakley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079774

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 08F09057, 11F08400) v.

JAMES EDWARD OAKLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Edward Oakley seeks to use a Proposition 47 petition, designed to reduce specified felonies to misdemeanors, as a vehicle to benefit from a legislative redefinition of the crime of transportation of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.)1 As we explain, that crime is not subject to reduction under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, and defendant’s conviction for that crime was final

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code.

1

before the redefinition took effect. We conclude the redefinition cannot be applied retrospectively, and therefore the trial court properly denied defendant’s petition. BACKGROUND Our opinion affirming defendant’s conviction stated its key holding as follows:

“[Defendant] was convicted on multiple criminal charges, including transportation of methamphetamine. ([§] 11379, subd. (a).) As a repeat offender, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years four months in state prison. Defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court wrongly sentenced him to an additional three-year term under [section] 11370.2, because the transportation of methamphetamine charge for which he was convicted was based on transportation for personal use. Defendant also contends the trial court wrongly believed it lacked discretion under the three strikes law to sentence defendant to a concurrent term for his conviction on the charge of failure to appear.

“In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing the three-year enhancement pursuant to [section] 11370.2, because that enhancement applies regardless of whether transportation of a controlled substance is for personal use.” (People v. Oakley (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1243 (Oakley).) Defendant’s petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on August 14, 2013. (Oakley, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 1241, review den. Aug. 14, 2013, S211669.) He concedes his conviction became final later in 2013, after he failed to seek review by the United States Supreme Court. On February 11, 2015, the trial court granted defendant’s Proposition 47 petition to reduce his conviction for simple possession, section 11377, subdivision (a), to a misdemeanor, imposed a one-year jail sentence, and stayed it pursuant to Penal Code section 654. This reduction had no effect on the length of his sentence, as execution of the prior felony sentence for that count had been stayed at the original sentencing hearing. (See Oakley, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245, fn. 4.)