People v. Ellis CA4/1

Filed 4/24/23 P. v. Ellis CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081219

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD156047)

JUSTIN CARLYLE ELLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Justin Carlyle Ellis, in pro. per.; and Sally Patrone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2000, Justin Carlyle Ellis committed a robbery using a pellet gun.

He ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, 1 § 211). Ellis admitted a deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and admitted three strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and one serious felony prior

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). His motion to strike the “strike priors” was denied. Ellis was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 31 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life as a third strike offender, one year for the use of the weapon and five years for the serious felony prior. Ellis filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. The prison priors which would have been a subject of such petition had already been stricken and did not form a part of the sentence. The trial court summarily denied the petition for resentencing, finding Ellis was not eligible for relief under the statute. Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ellis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Ellis has responded by filing a letter brief. We will discuss his submission later in this opinion.