People v. Woodson CA3

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Woodson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097866

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM009513)

v.

DEMETRIUS PATRICK WOODSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Demetrius Patrick Woodson appeals from a postconviction resentencing order under Penal Code former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75).1 Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have exercised our discretion to conduct such a review

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

and will affirm the trial court’s order. (See, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232 (Delgadillo).) BACKGROUND In 1997, a jury found defendant guilty of one count each of first degree burglary (§ 459), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) The trial court found true two prior serious felony enhancement allegations (§ 667, subd. (a)) and four prior prison term enhancement allegations. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) (People v. Woodson (June 21, 2021, C079633) [nonpub. opn.].) The prosecution later dismissed the possession of a controlled substance count. Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (enacted by the electorate Nov. 4, 2014). (People v. Woodson, supra, C079633.) The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, this court struck as unauthorized two of four prior prison term enhancements and affirmed the denial without prejudice so that defendant could file another petition. (Ibid.) In 2022, after a review of its records, the trial court set defendant’s case for resentencing under former section 1171.1. The prosecution conceded the two remaining prior prison term enhancements should be stricken, but argued the court should not strike the prior serious felony enhancements. Defendant did not submit any briefing or documents in support of resentencing. The court entertained argument from the parties and defendant made a statement about his rehabilitative efforts in prison. The court noted the original sentencing court had denied defendant’s Romero2 motion and declined to revisit that ruling, saying it was not in the interest of justice to strike the prior strike. The trial court struck the two prior prison term enhancements, saying they were now legally invalid. The court reimposed a 25-year-to-life sentence on the burglary