People v. Bowden CA3

Filed 10/23/20 P. v. Bowden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090228

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F10399)

v.

LADON BOWDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ladon Bowden asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In December 2009, defendant was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and sentenced to a third-strike term of 25 years to life (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). We affirmed that conviction in August 2011. (People v. Bowden (Aug. 25, 2011, C064732) [nonpub. opn.].) After the electorate adopted the Three Strikes Reform Act in 2012, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to newly added Penal Code section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition after finding defendant was statutorily ineligible for resentencing. Relying on the description of defendant’s crime in our August 25, 2011, opinion, the trial court found “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that defendant intended to cause great bodily injury to the victim, and personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Thus, the court concluded, defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1) and (e)(2). In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s order and rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court should not have relied on the description of facts in this court’s appellate opinion to determine whether defendant “inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, and intended to do so, when he committed the crime of inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant causing a traumatic condition.” (People v. Bowden (Mar. 23, 2015, C073471) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2017, our Supreme Court held in People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 235- 236, 239-240 (Frierson) that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. In July 2019, defendant filed a “motion and request for reconsideration of petition for recall of the sentence and for resentencing under section 1170.126 in light of People v. Frierson . . . .” In his motion for reconsideration, defendant argued the jury did not find he inflicted great bodily injury on his victim, or intended to do so when he inflicted