Opinion
2d Crim. No. B303685
06-08-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL OROZCO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 1183645)
(Santa Barbara County)
Gabriel Orozco appeals a postjudgment order denying a motion to set aside his Three Strikes sentence. In 2009, appellant was convicted by jury of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The trial court found true allegations of two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Appellant was sentenced to prison for 27 years to life; we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Orozco (May 24, 2010, B215082) [nonpub. opn.].)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In 2019, appellant filed a motion to set aside the Three Strikes sentence as an unauthorized sentence, which was denied by the trial court. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed a brief raising no issues. On March 9, 2020, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
On April 14, 2020, appellant submitted a letter brief stating, among other things, that the preamble to Proposition 184 conflicts with other laws and renders his sentence invalid. Proposition 184, the initiative version of the Three Strikes law, was enacted in 1994 and mandates life sentences as the third strike penalty for those who have two or more prior felony convictions, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former section 1170.12. (See former § 1170.12, added by Prop. 184, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1994); People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 406-407.) Our Supreme Court has determined that Proposition 184 is nearly identical to the legislative version of the Three Strikes law (Stats. 1994, ch. 12, § 1, p. 71, codified at § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and is valid. (People v. Sasser (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1, 11.)
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment (order denying petition for resentencing) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P. J. We concur:
PERREN, J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Gustavo E. Lavayen, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.