From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bullock

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Oct 9, 2019
2d Crim. No. B296009 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B296009

10-09-2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MILTON EARL BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. TA116917)
(Los Angeles County)

Milton Earl Bullock appeals his conviction by plea to second degree robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 211), assault with a deadly weapon (count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and second degree commercial burglary (count 3; § 459), with two serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court granted a Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) to strike the Three Strikes allegations (§§ 667, subds. (b) - (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d)) and imposed a three-year sentence on count 1, plus one year on the prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), plus ten years on the two five-year serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) for an aggregate sentence of 14 years state prison. On counts 2 and 3, the trial court imposed concurrent three and two-year midterm sentences. Appellant was ordered to pay various fines and fees, and victim restitution.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

On January 14, 2019, appellant filed a petition to strike or dismiss the five-year serious felony conviction enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393. The trial court treated the petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied it on the ground that: appellant filed a prior writ petition on the same ground which was previously denied; the claims made in the petition to strike/dismiss were waived when appellant entered the change of plea; and appellant received the benefit of a plea disposition and was barred from challenging the negotiated plea.

Appellant also filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to reduce the conviction for second degree commercial burglary (count 3; § 459) to a misdemeanor. The trial court granted the petition.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On August 19, 2019, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.

Pat Connolly, Judge


Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Bullock

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Oct 9, 2019
2d Crim. No. B296009 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)
Case details for

People v. Bullock

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MILTON EARL BULLOCK, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Oct 9, 2019

Citations

2d Crim. No. B296009 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)