People v. Brock CA2/6

Filed 6/15/22 P. v. Brock CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B313769 (Super. Ct. No. NA051026) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

RONALD BROCK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald Brock appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.91.1 For reasons we shall explain, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2003, a jury convicted appellant of ten counts of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to a total of 26 years in

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 1

unless otherwise stated.

prison. On count 8, the base count, appellant received the upper term of eight years. On each of the remaining counts, counts 9 through 17, he was sentenced to two years -- one-third the middle term of six years. Counts 1 through 7 were dismissed pursuant to section 1385. Appellant’s petition, which was filed in 2019, requested resentencing based on mental health issues related to his prior military service.2 Section 1170.91, subdivision (a) authorizes the court, when sentencing a felony defendant who is or was a member of the United States military, to consider as a factor in mitigation, in imposing a determinate term sentence, that the defendant “may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of his or her military service.” The statute applies retroactively to defendants sentenced before January 1, 2015. (See id., subd. (b)(1)(B).) Appellant appeared with counsel at the hearing on the petition. The trial court acknowledged appellant’s health conditions and his prior military service but did not find that the conditions stemmed from his service. Citing a September 26, 2002 psychological report, the court found that the sentencing court was aware of appellant’s prior military service and that the report “is indicating that all issues did not occur as a result of any military service, not to mention it does not appear that [appellant] was deployed in any shape, way or form.” The court determined appellant’s health condition “was caused by a very difficult and traumatic childhood but it had absolutely nothing to