People v. Wooley CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 2021 No. F081197Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to recall and resentence, finding that the defendant's judgment was final before the effective date of the sentencing legislation he sought to apply retroactively.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to recall and resentence based on Senate Bill No. 1393.
Whether the defendant's judgment of conviction was final prior to the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1393.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Senate Bill 1393 applies retroactively to all cases or judgments of conviction in which a five-year term was imposed at sentencing, based on a prior serious felony conviction, provided the judgment of conviction is not final”

“After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.”

Filed 6/14/21 P. v. Wooley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F081197 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F18901813) v.

DARRYL DANIEL WOOLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda S. Allen-Hill, Judge. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Darryl Daniel Wooley was sentenced to 13 years pursuant to a negotiated disposition in 2018 and did not file a notice of appeal. In 2020, he filed a motion to recall and resentence him, based on an enhancement that was not imposed as part of his sentence, and the motion was denied. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 15, 2018, a felony complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging defendant with count 1, felony infliction of corporal injury on Jane Doe on or about November 1, 2017 (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),1 and in counts 2 through 10, felony dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime on November 2, 7, 8, and 15, 2017 (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)), with one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and one prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On May 10, 2018, defense counsel advised the court that defendant was going to enter in a negotiated disposition and plead no contest to count 1, infliction of corporal injury, and count 2, dissuading a witness on November 2, 2017. Counsel further stated defendant would admit the prior strike conviction for residential burglary, “and of course that goes along with it being also a serious prior” felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a). Defense counsel stated the stipulated term was 13 years, based on second strike terms of four years for both counts 1 and 2, and the “serious strike prior would be five years.” The prosecutor concurred with defense counsel’s statement about the negotiated

People v. Wooley CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief