Opinion
B299782
03-12-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH EARL SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VA116772) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2011, Joseph Earl Smith (defendant) was convicted of felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (former Pen. Code, § 245(a)(1)) and felony battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243(d)). His sentence of 38 years to life in state prison included two five-year enhancements, which were then mandatory, for having sustained prior serious felony convictions. (Former § 667(a)(1).)
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code. --------
In June 2019, defendant filed a request for resentencing in the superior court invoking Senate Bill No. 1393. That legislation, which took effect on January 1, 2019, amended sections 667(a) and 1385(b) to give trial courts discretion to strike five-year prior serious felony enhancements. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2; People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971 (Garcia).) Senate Bill No. 1393 applies to all cases that were not yet final when it took effect. (Garcia, supra, at 973.) The trial court denied defendant's request for resentencing because "defendant's case became final in approximately May or June of 2012," i.e., before Senate Bill No. 1393 took effect.
Defendant appealed the trial court's denial and this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On October 30, 2019, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J. We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.