Opinion
B240462
08-14-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LASHON MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Jonathan B. Steiner, California Appellate Project Executive Director, and 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SA023514)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edward B. Moreton, Judge. Dismissed.
Jonathan B. Steiner, California Appellate Project Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Michael Lashon Martinez appeals from the trial court's denial of his writ of habeas corpus. Because the trial court's order is not appealable, we will dismiss the appeal.
On the day defendant filed his opening brief (May 31, 2012), he also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking review of the trial court's order. (In re Martinez on Habeas Corpus, B241572.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1997, defendant was convicted of one count of attempted murder, four counts of robbery, and four counts of assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664, 211, 245, subd. (a)(2).) The court found he had suffered five prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) With the acquiescence of the prosecutor, the court vacated the attempted murder conviction. In addition to the sentences for the firearm enhancements, defendant received four consecutive 25-year-to-life terms for the four robberies. We modified the sentences for the firearm enhancements and affirmed the judgment. (People v. Martinez (Feb. 25, 1998, B110602) [nonpub. opn.].)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
--------
On February 14, 2011, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging the trial court did not understand that it had the discretion to impose concurrent sentences for the robberies. The prosecutor filed an informal response, conceding that defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing. However, the trial court disagreed. After hearing oral argument, the court denied the petition by written order on February 9, 2012. Defendant received a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and filed this appeal.
The denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not reviewable by means of an appeal. The aggrieved party must file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appellate court. (People v. Garrett (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1421-1423.) Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal and address defendant's claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J. We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J.