Opinion
B300061
03-10-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CONDALEE MORRIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Victoria H. Stafford, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA279836) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Dismissed. Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Condalee Morris appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 ((2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) §§ 1, 2). As we explain, the order is not appealable.
In 2005, a jury convicted Morris of various crimes arising out of a home invasion robbery and found true firearm allegations under Penal Code sections 12022.53, subdivision (b) and 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1)). Morris's sentence included terms for the firearm enhancements. On appeal, the judgment was modified to stay execution of a portion of the sentence upon completion of the sentence on the remaining counts, but it was otherwise affirmed. (People v. Morris (Sept. 26, 2007, B185476) [nonpub. opn.].)
Thereafter, on January 1, 2018, Senate Bill No. 620 became effective. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2.) Per that legislation, trial courts now have discretion to strike firearm enhancements in the interest of justice. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (h).) In April 2019, Morris filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking resentencing under that new law. On April 30, 2019, the trial court denied the petition because Morris had filed a prior petition raising the same claim and which had also been denied.
Morris then filed this appeal. After review of the record, Morris's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues, asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record, under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. By letter dated January 9, 2020, we advised Morris that he had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished this court to consider. Morris did not submit a brief or letter.
Newly amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) does not apply where, as here, the defendant's sentence was final before the section came into effect. (See People v. Hargis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 199, 209.) The judgment became final when the time to petition the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari expired. (People v. Harris (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 657, 659, fn. 2.) The trial court here therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant Morris's resentencing request. (See People v. Johnson (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 938, 941; People v Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.) As such, Morris's substantial rights were not affected and the order denying the petition is not appealable; hence, the appeal must be dismissed. (See Fuimaono, at p. 135.)
We are therefore satisfied that Morris's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
DHANIDINA, J. We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
EGERTON, J.