Opinion
B298923
01-29-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEROME DENARD WHITE, Defendant and Appellant.
Susan Morrow Maxwell, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. NA052614) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed. Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
In April 2003, a jury convicted Jerome Denard White of eight counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with findings he had personally used a firearm to commit the offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) and one count of cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding the trial court found White had suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), which also qualified as strikes under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
The court sentenced White to a state prison term of 295 years to life.
White appealed, and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. White (Sept. 22, 2014, B167416) [nonpub. opn].)
Representing himself, White in March 2019 filed a "Motion for Recall of Sentence for Resentencing to Exercise Discretion" requesting that he be resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620, which amended Penal Code section 12022.53, to give trial courts discretion to strike a firearm enhancement in the interest of justice. White asked the superior court to exercise its discretion under this new law, which became effective January 1, 2018, to strike or dismiss the 10-year enhancement the court imposed under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b).
On March 25, 2019, the superior court denied White's request for relief under Senate Bill No. 620, ruling it did not apply retroactively in this case.
The superior court also denied White's petition for a writ of habeas corpus from which White is not seeking appellate review. --------
White filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent White on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On September 25, 2019, we notified White he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted the court to consider. On October 24, 2019, we received a five-page handwritten supplemental brief in which White argued the superior court wrongly denied his request for relief under Senate Bill No. 620.
Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h), as amended, does not apply where, as here, defendant White's sentence was final before it came into effect. (See People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 323-324; In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745; see also People v. Arredondo (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 493, 507; People v. Woods (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1080, 1090-1091.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied White's appellate attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
ZELON, Acting P. J. We concur:
SEGAL, J.
FEUER, J.