Opinion
F075693
02-02-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MANUEL VALLADARES, Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 06CM8896)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T. LaPorte, Judge. Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Manuel Valladares asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded, requesting that we consider as his supplemental brief his petition for modification of sentence, filed with the superior court on April 21, 2017, and denied on May 8, 2017. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
It appears from the record that defendant committed the current crimes on August 28, 2004, about three months before his 21st birthday.
After pleading to the following crimes, on November 1, 2007, the trial court sentenced nearly 24-year-old defendant to a stipulated 49-year prison term, as follows: on count 1, 11 years for voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 193, subd. (a)); on count 2, two years for conspiracy to commit assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245, subd. (b)); and on count 3, one year four months for conspiracy to commit mayhem (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 203). In addition, the court imposed the following enhancements: on count 1, a 10-year section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement and a 10-year section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement; on count 2, a one-year-four-month section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement and a three-year-four- month section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement; and on count 3, a six-year-eight-month section 12022.53, subdivision (c) enhancement and a three-year-four-month section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We note that the record repeatedly refers to this statute as section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). Although this statute was previously numbered as section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1), by 2004, it had been renumbered as section 12022.5, subdivision (a). For that reason, we have corrected it in our opinion. --------
On April 21, 2017, about nine and one-half years after his 2007 sentencing, defendant filed with the superior court a petition for modification of his sentence. He argued the sentencing court failed to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles when it sentenced him to multiple enhancements, his disproportionately severe sentence denied him the opportunity to attend a Youth Offender Parole Hearing, his enhancements were imposed based on the same conduct, and a number of his constitutional rights were violated.
On May 8, 2017, the superior court denied the petition, explaining that the court's 120-day authority to modify a sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) had expired. The court also stated that neither the law nor the record supported defendant's claims, and defendant had waived the right to challenge his sentence because it was a stipulated sentence imposed according to a plea bargain. The court noted that if defendant sought to raise issues regarding the conditions of his confinement, he should do so by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On May 24, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal of the superior court's denial of his petition.
Our review of the record discloses no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant's challenge is to a stipulated sentence, agreed upon as part of his negotiated plea, and he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). Furthermore, the time for challenging the 2007 sentence has passed and we see no illegalities in the sentence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.