People v. Archuleta CA2/3

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B263220

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA036073) v.

ALBERT ARCHULETA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment 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 1996 defendant and appellant, Albert Archuleta, was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) Because he had already sustained two or more prior serious felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 25-years-to-life under the “Three Strikes” law. This judgment was affirmed on appeal in People v. Archuleta (Aug. 24, 1998, B111003) [nonpub. opn.]. Following the passage of Proposition 36,1 Archuleta, while he was being represented by a deputy public defender, filed a petition for recall of his sentence. 2 On March 10, 2015, the trial court denied the petition with prejudice on the ground that one of Archuleta’s prior convictions was for attempted murder, which disqualified him from Proposition 36 resentencing. Archuleta thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent Archuleta 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 Archuleta and notified Archuleta that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Archuleta filed a supplemental brief on April 8, 2016. We have examined the entire record and determined that, as the trial court found, Archuleta is ineligible for a reduction of his sentence under Proposition 36 because he has a disqualifying prior conviction under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3). As we explained in People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279: “On November 6, 2012, voters approved Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). Under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i),