People v. Anderson CA2/1

Filed 2/1/21 P. v. Anderson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306686

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA271932) v.

SAMUEL ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Renee F. Korn, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Samuel Anderson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

Samuel Anderson appeals from an order denying a motion filed in the trial court seeking a modification of his judgment and his release from prison without parole. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2005, a jury found Samuel Anderson guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (a knife). (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The court found two prior strike allegations to be true and sentenced Anderson under the “Three Strikes” law to prison for 25 years to life. In 2006, this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Anderson (Apr. 19, 2006, B183767).) On May 8, 2020, Anderson filed a motion in the superior court titled, “California Penal Code 1260 Reversal, Affirmance or Modification of Judgment.” Anderson requested the court to modify his judgment “and release [him] without any parole.” In support of his motion he relied on the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57) and section 1016.8. The court denied the motion, explaining that Proposition 57 “only provides an inmate who has completed his base term with a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (Cal. Const., [art. I, § 32, subd. (a)]). There is no resentencing option in the [s]uperior [c]ourt. The documents provided by the [d]efendant indicate that the Office of Appeal for the Department of Corrections has reviewed the [d]efendant’s file with him at length. This court declines to take any action at this time.” Anderson filed a timely notice of appeal.