Opinion
B301286
03-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THADDEUS ZAYEA FULLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Cheryl Lutz, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. TA085012) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed. Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Thaddeus Zayea Fuller appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for modification of sentence. He argued to the trial court and in his appeal that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to recent amendments to Penal Code sections 667 subdivision (a) and 1385, subdivision (b), enacted by legislation effective on January 1, 2019, a measure generally referred to as Senate Bill 1393, by which it was adopted. We affirm the trial court's order.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Defendant was convicted and sentenced to state prison for infliction of corporal injury to his child's mother (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) during which he inflicted great bodily injury on the mother (id., § 667, subds. (a), (b)—(i), § 1170.12, subds. (a)—(d)), with enhancements by reason of a prior domestic violence conviction (id., § 273.5, subd. (b)(1)) and having served multiple prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). He appealed from that judgment; we affirmed the judgment in 2008 (People v. Fuller (June 30, 2008, B194689) [nonpub. opn.]). In the present appeal he argues, as he did before the trial court, that he is entitled to the ameliorative provisions of the new legislation. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief in which she advises that she has reviewed the record, raised no issue upon which the judgment of the trial court should be changed, and asked that we make an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have done so and find no arguable issue. Defendant presents a single argument on appeal: that he is entitled to be resentenced under the ameliorative provisions of the new statute. These provisions apply only to cases not yet final on its January 1, 2019 effective date. (People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971.) Defendant is not entitled to the benefits of that statute because, by that date, the judgment he seeks altered had long been final.
DISPOSITION
The judgement is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J. (Ret.) We concur:
Retired Presiding Justice, Division Four, of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------
EDMON, P. J.
LAVIN, J.