People v. Thalheimer CA2/7

Filed 2/7/22 P. v. Thalheimer CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B312906

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA059953-02) v.

JUSTIN THALHEIMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed. Justin Thalheimer, in pro. per., and Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________

Justin Thalheimer, convicted of first degree premeditated murder following a jury trial in 2010 and sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of 76 years to life under the three strikes law, petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.951 on April 26, 2021. Thalheimer included with his filing a second petition for resentencing, purportedly pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (now section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1)),2 although no recommendation for resentencing had been submitted to the court by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the Los Angeles County District Attorney. The superior court summarily denied Thalheimer’s section 1170.95 petition, ruling he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law based on his conviction for first degree murder and the jury’s finding he had personally used a knife during the commission of the murder. The court did not rule on the request for resentencing under former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). No arguable issues were identified following review of the record by Thalheimer’s appointed appellate counsel. We also have identified no arguable issues after our own independent