People v. Myers CA2/4

Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Myers CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B263866

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA027232) v.

MICHAEL CRAIG MYERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Abtin Amir, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In January 1996, a jury convicted defendant Michael Myers of possession of 1 a firearm by a felon (Former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had suffered three prior convictions pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison. In 1999, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. (People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305.) In November 2012, defendant petitioned to have his sentence recalled under section 1170.126, Proposition 36. The trial court denied the petition, and defendant appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND The trial court’s memorandum of decision described the facts of appellant’s offense as follows (with citations to the reporter’s transcript of the trial deleted): “On May 3, 1995, an officer responded to the area of 954 North Park in Pomona regarding a fight and possible shots fired. Upon arriving, the officer observed two black males standing against a wall, drinking beer. When the officer called for them to approach his vehicle, one of the subjects ran to the end of the driveway and through an open gate next to apartment One at 954 North Park. The officer detained the remaining subject and called for assistance. A short time later, the subject reappeared from the area of apartment One and was detained by the officer. “The Officer observed [defendant] exit the open gate near apartment One, walk down the driveway, and watch the detention. He then left the area through the gate and returned a few minutes later. Believing he may be involved with the original call, the officer detained [defendant] and discovered he had recently been