People v. Chandler CA2/6

Filed 8/22/16 P. v. Chandler CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B267338 (Super. Ct. No. BA204995-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

LEESESTER CHANDLER, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Leesester Chandler, Jr. appeals a postconviction order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 ("the Act"). (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.)1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 4, 2001, Chandler was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1).)2 In a separate proceeding, the trial court found that Chandler suffered two prior serious felony strike convictions and served one prior prison term. (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) As a third strike

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 repealed and recodified former sections 12000 to 12809 without substantive change. Former section 12021 was recodified at section 29800, operative January 1, 2012. (People v. Wade (2016) 63 Cal.4th 137, 140.)

offender, the court sentenced Chandler to a prison term of 25 years to life. The court also imposed a $400 restitution fine and a $400 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended), and awarded Chandler 547 days of presentence custody credit. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed Chandler’s conviction. We described his offense as follows: On June 30, 2000, Los Angeles police officers received information that Chandler had robbed a victim at gunpoint. The officers later saw Chandler, a parolee, parked in a vehicle. After ordering Chandler to leave the vehicle, the officers searched him. When an officer shined her flashlight through the rear window of the vehicle, she saw the handle of a firearm near the armrest. According to the appellate record of trial, she described the location of the firearm as “on the front bench seat . . . under the driver's side armrest. And the actual barrel was facing northbound, making the handle really accessible to the driver." (People v. Chandler (Dec. 4, 2002, B151928) [nonpub. opn.].) Petition to Recall Sentence On November 14, 2012, Chandler filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, and resentence him as a second-strike offender. The prosecutor opposed the petition, asserting in part that Chandler is ineligible for resentencing because he was armed with a firearm during commission of the underlying offense. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii) [exclusion from resentencing pursuant to the Act where defendant was “armed with a firearm” during commission of offense], 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii) [same].) The trial court concluded that Chandler was ineligible for resentencing because he was “armed with a firearm“ during commission of the offense: “[The Court] finds[s] him ineligible on the basis that he was in possession of a weapon that was readily available for offensive or defensive use and it was in the car and he was alone.” It then denied Chandler’s petition. He now appeals that decision.