People v. Valentine CA2/2

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Valentine CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B319633

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A366030) v.

JOE LOUIS VALENTINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Joe Louis Valentine (defendant) appeals the order of the superior court denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 We appointed

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Defendant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. 3 BACKGROUND In January 1981, defendant and other gang members decided to avenge the death of one of their own by targeting members of a rival gang. Defendant, armed with a firearm, went to a gym located in the rival gang’s territory, confronted several people and fired one shot into the ceiling. As defendant exited the gym, he exchanged words with another man and then shot him in the head, killing him. Defendant was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, 187) with a true finding on the allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of 26 years to life comprised of 25 years to life for the conspiracy to commit murder and one additional year for the firearm enhancement. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, we modified the judgment to correct the abstract of judgment, which had erroneously documented a sentence of 16 years for defendant