People v. Bertram CA2/5

Filed 7/20/21 P. v. Bertram CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B304753

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA091126) v.

TIMOTHY BERTRAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark E. Windham, Judge. Dismissed. David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On July 14, 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Timothy Bertram (defendant) with four counts of burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459.1 The information alleged defendant entered a medical office with the intent to commit a felony on two different dates in June 2015. The information further alleged defendant had suffered prior convictions, including a conviction for a serious or violent felony. On September 9, 2016, defendant pled no contest to two counts of burglary (counts one and four). The remaining counts were dismissed pursuant to defendant’s plea agreement. Defendant admitted he had suffered three prior convictions. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total of six years and eight months. That sentence included three years pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements (one year for each of three admitted priors). On January 15, 2020, defendant filed a document in the trial court that he styled as a petition for recall of commitment under section 1016.8. Defendant argued that under Assembly Bill No. 1618, which amended section 1016.8, he was permitted to benefit from legislative enactments that occurred after the date of his plea and judgment. He further argued he should be allowed to benefit from an amendment to section 667.5. Specifically, defendant argued that when he was sentenced, the trial court was permitted to impose a one-year enhancement for each of the prior prison terms he had served. Under the amended section 667.5, however, an enhancement may only be applied for a prior