People v. Colbert CA2/4

Filed 5/11/21 P. v. Colbert CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B307082

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA431346) v.

ROLAND COLBERT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David V. Herriford, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

DISCUSSION In December 2015, appellant Roland Colbert pled no contest to a charge of assault with intent to commit a felony. 1 (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1).) He admitted the truth of an allegation that he had suffered a 1984 conviction for robbery (§ 211), which qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)) and a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 17 years, comprising the high term of six years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, and a five-year enhancement for his prior robbery conviction under section 667, subdivision (a). Appellant did not appeal the judgment. In July 2020, appellant filed a motion for modification of his sentence under newly enacted section 1016.8, subdivision (b), which provides, “A provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may retroactively apply after the date of the plea is void as against public policy.” Appellant did not claim his 1984 plea bargain had included such a waiver provision. Instead, appellant argued his 1984 robbery conviction was void -- and therefore should not have been used to enhance his sentence in this case -- because he allegedly had not been advised, when pleading