People v. Peterson CA2/1

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Peterson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B325807

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA039464) v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph R. Porras, Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Defendant Christopher Lee Peterson suffered two strike convictions, one in 1986 and another in 1992. A jury thereafter convicted him in 1997 of a third strike, first degree burglary, which is itself a serious felony (Pen. Code,1 § 1192.7, subd. (c)(18)). As a result, the court sentenced Peterson to an indeterminate life imprisonment term pursuant to the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, 1170.12). After Peterson was sentenced, the voters passed Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, which “created a postconviction release proceeding whereby a prisoner who is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed pursuant to the [T]hree [S]trikes law for a crime that is not a serious or violent felony . . . may have his or her sentence recalled and be sentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126.)” (People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 168, italics added.) Approximately 10 years after section 1170.126 became law, Peterson filed a petition for recall of his first degree burglary sentence pursuant to that section. The trial court found the petition untimely and that Peterson was in any event statutorily ineligible for relief because his commitment offense was and still is classified as a serious felony. Peterson now appeals that decision. We find no error and affirm. A. Factual and Procedural Background Prior to 1997, Peterson had suffered two strike convictions: a 1986 state conviction for first degree burglary and a 1992 federal conviction for bank robbery. After being released from prison on the bank robbery conviction, Peterson was arrested