People v. Hoslett CA2/6

Filed 10/7/22 P. v. Hoslett CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B320614 (Super. Ct. No. 2015037325) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

RAYMOND JAMES HOSLETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond James Hoslett appeals from the postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing.1 We affirm.

1Hoslett appealed from a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which is not an appealable order. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7, superseded in other part by statute as stated in In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 739-740.) Nonetheless, his petition sought resentencing based on new legislation and the petition can be treated as a petition for resentencing, which is an appealable order pursuant to Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b). (People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340,

1

In 2020, Hoslett pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted he caused great bodily injury after stabbing his victim in the chest. (Pen. Code,2 §§ 245, subd. (a)(1); 12022.7.) He also admitted three prior “strikes” (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)) and two prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 years in state prison (three years for assault, a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and a consecutive 5 years each for the two prior serious felony enhancements). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court dismissed the strikes. Two years later, Hoslett moved for resentencing. The trial court denied the petition. Hoslett also petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that the court illegally imposed the two five-year enhancements for the prior serious felonies, and that his due process rights were violated when the court failed to provide him with a hearing on the sentencing enhancements and pretrial mental health diversion. The trial court denied the habeas writ petition. The court concluded that “none of the new legislation meaningfully impacts [Hoslett]’s conviction or the imposition of the Penal Code section 667, subd. (a) enhancements.” The court noted that Hoslett was sentenced after Senate Bill No. 1393’s amendments were effective and “there is no indication that the Court was unaware of the proper scope of its discretion.” The trial court found no due process violation. The enhancements were imposed during the sentencing hearing and Hoslett knowingly and voluntarily