Opinion
2d Crim. No. B304131
07-31-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARD MCBATH, Defendant and Appellant.
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SM110324)
(Santa Barbara County)
Charles Edward McBath appeals from the order after judgment denying his motion for resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 1999, McBath was convicted following jury trial of residential burglary. (§ 459.) Prior burglary convictions from 1986 and 1988 were found true. Using the prior convictions as prior strikes and as prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subds. (a), (e)(2)(A)(ii)), the trial court sentenced McBath to a prison term of 25 years to life, plus 10 years.
Consecutive sentences were imposed in case no. SM11057, but no appeal has been filed in that case. --------
In 2020, the trial court denied McBath's motion to vacate the prior convictions and resentence him.
We appointed counsel to represent McBath in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. We advised McBath that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
McBath filed a supplemental brief in which he contends that the trial court erred in failing to strike the prior convictions. He argues that the guilty pleas on which the priors were based are invalid because section 1016.8, enacted by Assembly Bill No. 1618 in 2019, invalidates a plea bargain that requires the defendant to waive future changes in the law.
Section 1016.8 prohibits waiver of "future benefits" of changes in the law. Enactment of the three strikes law in 1994 did not confer a "benefit" to defendant. Convictions suffered before the enactment of the three strikes law may be used as strikes. (People v. Hamilton (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1617.) The five-year enhancement for serious felony prior convictions pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), was enacted by Proposition 8 in 1982, before the prior convictions here, and was not a future change in the law.
McBath also contends the guilty pleas to the prior offenses were invalid because he was not advised they could enhance a sentence for a future case. "[I]n accepting a guilty plea to a felony the trial court is not required to advise the defendant that his conviction may result in an enhanced sentence for a future felony conviction." (People v. Crosby (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1354; People v. Bernal (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1457.)
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that McBath's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
TANGEMAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
PERREN, J.
Timothy J. Staffel, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.