People v. Meadows CA2/1

Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Meadows CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B306132

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA031093) v.

FRANK EDWARD MEADOWS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

Frank Edward Meadows, Jr., appeals from an order denying his motion for modification of sentence. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 1999, a jury found Meadows guilty of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)1 Allegations that Meadows had sustained two prior serious felony robbery convictions were found to be true. The trial court sentenced Meadows to 35 years to life: 25 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) for the burglary, plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). This court affirmed the judgment (People v. Meadows (Oct. 22, 2001, B142112) [nonpub. opn.]). On January 9, 2020, Meadows filed a motion for modification of his third strike sentence under newly-enacted section 1016.8. (Stats. 2019, ch. 586, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.) The statute provides, in pertinent part, that a plea bargain “that requires a defendant to generally waive unknown future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea is not knowing and intelligent.” (§ 1016.8, subd. (a)(4).) Meadows argued in his motion that section 1016.8 requires vacation of his third strike sentence because his two prior serious felony robbery convictions followed plea bargains that pre-dated enactment of the Three Strikes law, and the “retroactive application” of the Three Strikes law to the robbery convictions deprived him of the benefit of the “plea bargain contract[s] by rendering [them]