People v. Thomas CA2/2

Filed 3/3/22 P. v. Thomas CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B315421

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A763067) v.

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Robert Quincy Thomas (defendant) appeals the order of the superior court denying his motion for a sentence modification, which the trial court construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal, and after examination of the record, counsel filed an opening

brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, in propria persona. BACKGROUND In February 1986, defendant pled guilty to one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and was sentenced to state prison for 15 years to life. On June 4, 2020, defendant filed a petition seeking resentencing under section 1170.95. (People v. Thomas (Jan. 14, 2021, B306959).) On June 10, 2020, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court seeking to vacate his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Thomas, supra, B306959.) On June 23, 2020, the superior court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on two broad grounds—namely, that (1) defendant’s petition was untimely filed, and (2) his ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit because his counsel was not ineffective for (a) failing to advise him of the applicability of later-enacted section 1016.8, which did not apply to defendant, and (b) not objecting to the charging document, which was not defective. (People v. Thomas, supra, B306959.) Defendant appealed the order. However, in a noncapital case, no appeal lies from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895 [“in noncapital cases, if the superior court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has no statutory right to appeal.