Opinion
2d Crim. No. B293699
07-18-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEESESTER CHANDLER, JR. Defendant and Appellant.
Suzan E. Hier, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BA204995 )
(Los Angeles County)
In 2001, Leesester Chandler, Jr. was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of former Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (now section 29800, subdivision (a)(1)). He had prior felony convictions for carjacking and robbery. He was sentenced to 25 years to life under the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) We affirmed the conviction. (People v. Chandler (Dec. 4, 2002, B151928) [nonpub. opn.].)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. --------
In 2012, Chandler filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, and resentence him as a second strike offender. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not eligible because he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense. (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).) We affirmed. (People v. Chandler (Dec. 19, 2016, B267338) [nonpub. opn.].)
Subsequently, our Supreme Court decided in People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, that the factors rendering a defendant ineligible for recall of sentence must be found beyond a reasonable doubt.
In July of 2018, Chandler renewed his petition. The trial court again found him ineligible, this time beyond a reasonable doubt. Chandler appeals the denial of his petition.
We appointed counsel to represent Chandler in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
On March 29, 2019, we notified Chandler that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions he may wish to raise on appeal.
Chandler submitted a letter brief contending he is entitled to retroactive application of a recent amendment giving the trial court the discretion to strike firearm enhancements imposed under section 12022.53.
Chandler's contention is beyond the scope of this appeal. Even if we were to treat Chandler's brief as a writ petition, we would be required to deny the petition.
The Penal Code is not retroactive. (§ 3.) An exception applies to cases that are not final when a statutory amendment becomes effective. (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 742.) But Chandler's 2001 conviction has long since become final. Finally, the amendment applies only to section 12022.53. It does not apply to section 12021 under which Chandler was convicted.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Chandler's counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J. We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
William C. Ryan, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Suzan E. Hier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.