People v. Patterson CA5

Filed 9/12/16 P. v. Patterson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069625 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SC058115) v.

LAWRENCE EUGENE PATTERSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Appellant Lawrence Eugene Patterson appeals from the denial of his petition to recall a sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1261. Appellant claims his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, former subd. (a)(1), as amended by Stats. 1993, ch. 369, § 1) did not result in an indeterminate life sentence for a serious or violent felony (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(1)). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following the enactment of Proposition 36, appellant filed a petition to recall his sentence under a 1994 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury.2 Appellant had been convicted of the assault charge under section 245, former subdivision (a)(1), with an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury under section 12022.7, former subdivision (a), and of having two prior felony convictions, qualifying the case for three-strike sentencing. Accordingly, appellant was sentenced to a term of 25-years-to-life, with an additional 11-year term. The trial court, finding appellant was not eligible for a recall of sentence, denied appellant’s request. This appeal timely followed. With respect to the factual history of appellant’s 1994 conviction, the parties rely extensively on our unpublished opinion from appellant’s direct appeal.3 Because the underlying factual basis for the conviction is not relevant to any issue in this appeal, we do not recount those facts separately here.