Opinion
C087488
02-20-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY RAY BRADLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 09F01534)
In 2012, this court affirmed a judgment against defendant Jimmy Ray Bradley, pursuant to which defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 35 years to life in state prison. (People v. Bradley (Oct. 9, 2012, C064726) [nonpub. opn.].) In November 2013, the trial court resentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 17 years four months after granting his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126 (Proposition 36—Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012).
On February 23, 2018, defendant petitioned the trial court to reduce his felony conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11359 (count 2) to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 64. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361.8, subd. (a).) The court granted his petition and reduced that conviction to a misdemeanor. Defendant also asked the court to strike his three prior drug offense enhancements, appended to his conviction for violating Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1), pursuant to Senate Bill No. 180 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 180), which amended Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. The court rejected that request and resentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 16 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to strike the prior drug enhancements appended to his conviction on count 1. We disagree.
"While we recognize that the Legislature may expressly avail defendants whose judgments are final of the benefits of newly enacted laws [citations], here, nothing in Senate Bill 180 suggests it was intended to apply to judgments that had become final before the filing of the motion. [Citation.] Had the Legislature intended that Senate Bill 180 should be applied to those whose criminal convictions had become final, it could easily have said so." (People v. Chamizo (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 696, 700-701.)
Defendant's judgment was final in 2013. Thus, in 2018, when defendant moved the court to strike the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 enhancements appended to his conviction on count 1, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant his request. (See People v. Chamizo, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 700-701.) Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, it is legally irrelevant that defendant's sentence on count 2 was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 64, which applies to final judgments. (See People v Rascon (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 388, 394-395 [Proposition 64 provides mechanism for resentencing or dismissing all judgments, including those that are final].) We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Butz, J. We concur: /s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Murray, J.