Opinion
B312633
09-20-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG KAISER GARRETT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA080544
THE COURT:Craig Kaiser Garrett petitioned for recall of his sentence and for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36) (Pen. Code, § 1170.126 ). The superior court denied the petition. Garrett filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appointed counsel filed an appellate brief raising no issues. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503; People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted October 14, 2020, S264278.) We evaluate here the contentions made in Garrett's supplemental brief. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120-124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
In 2012, a jury convicted Garrett of residential burglary (§ 459), attempted residential burglary (§§ 459, 664), and resisting a peace officer (§ 148) in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. YA080544. He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 35 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law.
On appeal, we vacated his conviction for attempted burglary (count 3), which the trial court had erroneously stayed, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Garrett (Dec. 26, 2012, B239107) [nonpub. opn.].)
Proposition 36 amended the Three Strikes law to provide, in general, that a defendant is not subject to an indeterminate life term for a third felony that is neither serious nor violent unless the offense satisfies other criteria identified in the statute. The amendments also allowed eligible defendants previously sentenced to indeterminate terms under the Three Strikes law to petition for recall of their sentences and for resentencing to the term the court would have imposed had those defendants been sentenced under the new sentencing provisions. (§ 1170.126, subd. (a); see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1062.)
In his supplemental brief, Garrett contends his 35-years-to-life sentence for residential burglary was “illegal” because it was based on “a false police report.” The trial court properly denied Garrett Proposition 36 relief, finding his residential burglary conviction did not qualify for resentencing as a serious felony.
The superior court did not appear to realize that Garrett's conviction for attempted residential burglary had been vacated on appeal and found it as a basis for Proposition 36 ineligibility.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.