California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 2023 No. E081748Unpublished
Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Demedio CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E081748
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1203227)
RONALD RALPH DEMEDIO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Dismissed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant Ronald Ralph Demedio appeals from the order of the Riverside
Superior Court granting the People’s motion to remove his name from the list of persons
identified as eligible for resentencing relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 We
will dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND2
In 2015, defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary (§ 459), receipt
of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)).
Defendant admitted that he had suffered five prior prison terms coming within
section 667.5, subdivision (b), as well as three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667,
subd. (a)), and three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(2), 1170.12,
subd. (c)(2)(A)). The court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate term of 25 years
to life and determinate term of 13 years.
Defendant appealed and we remanded the matter for a new sentencing hearing.
That hearing resulted in another appeal in which we once again remanded the matter for a
new sentencing hearing. In the course of resentencing defendant at the July 2021 remand
hearing, the trial court struck defendant’s five prison priors.3
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 The background is taken from this court’s prior nonpublished opinions in defendant’s prior appeals, case Nos. E063425 and E068595, which are part of the record on appeal in this case. (People v. Demedio (Oct. 21, 2016, E063425); People v. Demedio (Sept. 23, 2020).)
3 We note the court stated that it counted four “667.5(d)s” on the abstract of judgment when making its order to strike the one-year priors. It is clear from its [footnote continued on next page]
2
In January 2022, section 1172.75 became effective.4 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3,
(Senate Bill No. 483), eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) That provision eliminated as legally invalid all
prison prior sentence enhancements set forth in section 667.5, subdivision (b), that were
imposed before January 1, 2022, except those involving a prison prior for specified
sexually violent offenses. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) The statute requires the Secretary of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the county correctional
administrator of each county to identify persons in their custody currently serving a term
for a judgment that includes a prison prior enhancement coming within subdivision (a) of
section 1172.75 and to provide the name of each person and other specified identifying
information to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement. (§ 1172.75,
subd. (b).)
Apparently, defendant was included on a list prepared pursuant to section 1172.75
even though the court struck his prison priors in July 2021. The People moved to take
defendant’s case off calendar because he was not entitled to relief as his priors had
already been stricken. Defendant opposed the motion on the grounds he had not been
pronouncement made at the commencement of the hearing that the court was referring to the one-year enhancements for prison priors imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), not (d). It is also clear from the court’s statements that it intended to strike all of the prison prior enhancements, and miscounted the number appearing on the abstract of judgment, which correctly reflected that defendant had been sentenced on five, not four, prior prison enhancements. The abstract of judgment issued after the hearing reflects that all five had been stricken.
4 At the time of its enactment in January 2021, section 1172.75 was numbered section 1171.1, but was renumbered effective June 30, 2022, with no substantive changes to the statute (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12).
3
afforded a full resentencing hearing at the time his prison priors were stricken. The trial
court found defendant had been given a full resentencing hearing and, in any event,
because he was not currently serving a term for a judgment that included a prior prison
enhancement, he was not eligible for section 1172.75 relief. Defendant timely noticed
this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth
statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. Counsel
asked this court to independently review the record on appeal, citing People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 US. 738.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we advised defendant and counsel that, because
the appeal is from the denial of a post-conviction proceeding, this court is not required to
conduct an independent review of the record and cited People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216. We invited defendant to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary and
advised him that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.
Defendant did not file a brief.
Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue, and upon our review of
the record, we do not find any error. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
McKINSTER J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal from an order removing his name from a list of persons eligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.75 because no issues were presented for adjudication.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting the People's motion to remove the defendant from the list of persons eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We will dismiss the appeal.”
“Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue, and upon our review of the record, we do not find any error. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.”