Opinion
E073639
02-24-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARVEY LAROY LACY, Defendant and Appellant.
Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1807546) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Harvey Laroy Lacy, pled guilty to willfully and unlawfully causing death to a person while driving a vehicle and attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.3, subd. (b), count 1) and three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, counts 3, 4, 5). Defendant additionally admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of count 1. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of eight years of imprisonment.
Defendant thereafter filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The People filed a response contending defendant was ineligible for relief because he had not been convicted of any homicide offense. The court subsequently denied the petition.
After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's petition for resentencing. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant admitted that on August 5, 2018, he was driving a vehicle while being followed by an officer in a vehicle with its lights and siren activated. Defendant failed to pull over, causing an accident that resulted in the death of another person. Defendant additionally admitted entering three stores with the intent to steal or commit a felony.
The People charged defendant by felony complaint with willfully and unlawfully causing death to a person while driving a vehicle and attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.3, subd. (b), count 1), vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1), count 2), and two counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, counts 3 & 4). The People additionally alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of counts 1 and 2. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) Upon the People's motion, the court amended the complaint by interlineation to add an additional count of burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459, count 5.)
Defendant pled guilty to willfully and unlawfully causing death to a person while driving a vehicle and attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.3, subd. (b), count 1) and three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, counts 3, 4, 5). Defendant additionally admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of count 1. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) In return, the court dismissed count 2 upon the People's motion. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of eight years in state prison.
Defendant thereafter filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The People filed a response contending defendant was ineligible for relief because he had not been convicted of any homicide offense. At the hearing on the petition, the People reiterated their opposition to the petition on the basis argued in their response. The court agreed with the People's argument and denied the petition.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. CODRINGTON
J.