People v. Medrano CA2/3

Filed 9/22/20 P. v. Medrano 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B304798

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA103398 v.

ALFREDO MAGIANO MEDRANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Alfredo Magiano Medrano appeals from the order denying his request for recall and resentencing under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18). Defendant also appeals from the order denying his request for modification of sentence under Senate Bill No. 136 (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Our independent review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate issues, and we affirm both orders.

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2014, defendant pled no contest to first- degree residential burglary (§ 459). He also admitted suffering a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 14 years in state prison. The court imposed the upper term of six years for the burglary conviction, doubled to 12 years because of the prior strike, plus two years for the prior prison term enhancements to run consecutively. On January 9, 2020, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing requesting that his burglary conviction be designated a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. On the same day, defendant filed a motion for modification of sentence requesting that the prior prison term enhancements be set aside under Senate Bill No. 136. The court denied both requests in separate orders.