Opinion
B307205
03-15-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MILES ORLANDO BONTY, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA028479) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Juan Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND
At about 1:00 a.m. on July 31, 1995, appellant Miles Orlando Bonty entered a donut shop, displayed a gun to an employee, and took money from the shop's cash register. A sheriff's deputy who was outside the shop at the time witnessed the incident and apprehended appellant almost immediately.
In 1997, a jury convicted appellant of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and the court found that appellant suffered three prior strike convictions. The court sentenced appellant to 40 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life on the robbery, plus 15 years for the strikes. This court affirmed the conviction. (People v. Bonty (Jan. 20, 1999, B111310) [nonpub. opn.].)
On May 19, 2020, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Board of Parole Hearings wrongly found him ineligible for early parole under Proposition 57. On June 17, 2020, the trial court denied the petition, stating, "The facts presented do not justify the court granting defendant's petition."
Proposition 57 added section 32 to article I of the California Constitution, and provides in part: "Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, subd. (a), par. (1).)
On July 13, 2020, appellant filed the same or a similar petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court. This court denied the petition, finding that appellant was not eligible for relief under Proposition 57 because robbery is a violent felony. (In re Bonty (Oct. 23, 2020, B306584) [nonpub. opn.].)
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the file in In re Bonty, supra, B306584. --------
Meanwhile, on August 13, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial of his petition. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).
Under Serrano, when appointed counsel raises no issue in an appeal from a post-judgment proceeding following a first appeal as of right, an appellant court need not independently review the record and may dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file a supplemental brief. Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 498, 503.) We directed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant, and notified appellant of his right to respond within 30 days. We have received no response. Because neither appellant nor his counsel has raised any claim of error, and an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not appealable (see Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895), we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 498, 503.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
COLLINS, J. We concur: MANELLA, P. J. CURREY, J.