People v. Scoggins CA3

Filed 3/17/21 P. v. Scoggins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092018

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62167548A)

v.

WESLEY SHAWN SCOGGINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Wesley Shawn Scoggins appeals from an order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d).1 Appointed counsel for defendant asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues in accordance with People v. Wende (1979)

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We conclude defendant is not entitled to Wende review and will dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On October 23, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to attempted pandering by encouragement. (§§ 664, 266i, subd. (a)(2).) Defendant also admitted to being previously convicted of two strike offenses (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)- (i)) and serving a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) As part of the negotiated plea, defendant and the People agreed defendant would serve a stipulated term of five years in state prison. At the sentencing hearing on December 4, 2019, the People noted they negotiated the disposition “based on the agreement that the defendant would serve the one-year sentence as a result of the [section] 667.5[, subdivision] (b) prior.” The trial court advised defendant accordingly: “[Y]ou understand this is a negotiated disposition, five years. You would not be able to appeal the sentence or petition the Court to reduce the sentence at all. Do you understand that? [¶] THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.” The trial court then sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of five years, in accordance with the plea agreement. On March 30, 2020, defendant petitioned the trial court to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d). In support of his petition, defendant argued he was entitled to the benefits of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which took effect on January 1, 2020, and have the trial court strike his prior prison term enhancement. Defendant acknowledged waiving the right to challenge that enhancement at sentencing, but, relying on newly enacted section 1016.8, he argued that waiver was “ ‘void as against public policy.’ ” After hearing argument from both parties and reviewing the language of section 1016.8, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. The trial court found defendant was informed of the upcoming change in the law relative to prior prison term enhancements at