People v. Locke

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LOCKE, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Aug 5, 2020

C089918 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020)

Opinion

C089918

08-05-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LOCKE, Defendant and Appellant.

Robie, Acting P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 11F08106, 19HC00246)

In 2013, defendant Michael Locke was convicted of four counts of sexual penetration of a child 10 years or younger, under Penal Code¹ section 288.7, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life on each conviction. (People v. Locke (July 10, 2015, C075353) [nonpub. opn.].)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2019, defendant filed two petitions² for recall and resentencing under section 1170.91. Section 1170.91 allows the mental health problems caused by a defendant's service to be considered as a factor in mitigation under section 1170, subdivision (b) and provides a process for petitioning for recall and resentencing for those defendants currently serving a felony sentence. (§ 1170.91, subds. (a), (b).) The trial court denied both petitions on the grounds defendant was not eligible for relief as he was not sentenced under section 1170, subdivision (b), but rather pursuant to section 288.7, subdivision (b).

2 The second petition, filed after the trial court's denial of the first, was filed as a petition for habeas corpus, but the trial court construed it as a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170.91. --------

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition is affirmed.

/s/_________

Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Murray, J. /s/_________
Krause, J.