Opinion
C082672 C083099
10-03-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTO CHAIDEZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 88720, 88721)
In this consolidated appeal, we consider defendant's appeal from the trial court's denial of various petitions related to the resentencing provisions of Propositions 36 and 47 filed by defendant Roberto Chaidez. Finding defendant's claims already rejected by this court in a prior appeal of defendant or raising matters not cognizable on appeal, we shall affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1989, defendant Roberto Chaidez was convicted by a jury of two counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) and one count each of first degree burglary (§ 459), child endangerment (§ 273a), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) in case Nos. 88720 and 88721. (People v. Chaidez (Feb. 24, 2016, C078625) [nonpub. opn.] at pp. 1-2 (Chaidez).) The jury sustained allegations that defendant committed a felony while released from custody (§ 12022.1) and had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). (Chaidez, supra, at p. 2.) Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of 15 years eight months, and we affirmed his conviction on appeal. (Ibid.)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We dispense with a recitation of the facts of defendant's crimes as it is unnecessary to resolve this appeal.
In early 2015, defendant filed petitions in both cases to reduce his convictions to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. (Chaidez, supra, C078625, at p. 2.) In case No. 88720, the trial court initially denied the petition, but on reconsideration, redesignated the two receiving stolen property convictions to misdemeanors. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the petition in case No. 88721 and denied defendant's motion for a hearing and reconsideration. (Ibid.)
Defendant had completed his sentence in both cases and was serving a 60-year-to-life prison term for an unrelated conviction in San Diego County. (Chaidez, supra, C078625, at p. 3.) --------
Defendant appealed. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking us to review the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (Chaidez, supra, C078625, at p. 1.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending the trial court had a duty to guarantee the sentence was not greater, he had a right to a hearing, the trial court had a duty to enforce the guarantees of section 1170.18, subdivisions (e) and (h), and appellate counsel was ineffective. (Chaidez, supra, at p. 4.) We rejected all of defendant's claims, conducted Wende review, and affirmed the trial court's orders. (Chaidez, supra, at pp. 4-5.)
Starting in the month after our affirmance of the trial court's orders, defendant filed additional petitions regarding his 1989 convictions in the Sacramento Superior Court, which we relate as follows:
On March 28, 2016, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36. (§ 1170.126.) The trial court denied the petition on May 2, 2016, noting that defendant's crimes were committed five years before the three strikes law was passed. The trial court (Culhane, J.) found "the pleading to be indiscernible. None of it makes sense." Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on May 20, 2016, which the trial court denied on June 16, 2016.
On June 17, 2016, defendant filed a petition "FOR RESENTENCING ERRORS PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 47, PENAL CODE SECTION []1170.18 (e) DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED ORIGINAL 1989 ACQUITTAL SENTENCE, ORDER TO EXPUNGE SENTENCE DUTY TO CALCULATE EXACT LENGTH IN TIME."
On June 27, 2016, defendant filed a "MOTION TO EXPEDITE" consideration of the May 20, 2016, motion for reconsideration.
On July 7, 2016, defendant filed motions for a hearing under Proposition 47, discovery, to "RECUSE PREJUDICE JUDGES, BIAS REFUSAL TO ENFORCE A MEXICAN-AMERICAN DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED COURT ACCESS PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 47: PENAL CODE SECTION []1170.18 (e) ORIGINAL 1989 SENTENCES TOTAL LENGTH IN TIME CALCULATIONS," and "TO EXPEDITE JUNE 10, 2016[,] AMENDED PROP[.] 47 PENAL CODE SECTION []1170.18 (e)."
On July 20, 2016, the trial court denied defendant's June 17, 2016, petition. Two days later, defendant filed a "MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL DOCUMENTS-COURTS RECORDS FROM 1997-TO-2016 PURSUANT TO VIOLATIONS DUE PROCESS OF PENAL CODE SECTION []1170.18 (e): ONLY ORIGINAL 1989 RECORDS," as well as an "URGENT SANCTIONS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS 'RULES' OF COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE P.C. § 1170.18 (e) ONLY ORIGINAL 1989 ORDERS."
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's July 20, 2016, denial on August 1, 2016.
On August 8, 2016, the trial court denied the reconsideration motion. On the same day, the trial court struck as untimely the July 7, 2016, recusal motion. The trial court (Koller, J.) characterized defendant's July 7 and July 22 motions as "practically indiscernible" and asking for "relief outside the limited jurisdiction the court is granted by [section] 1170.18." The trial court construed the motions as applications for reconsideration of its denial of section 1170.18 relief in case No. 88721, for resentencing in case No. 88720, and for a hearing on his applications. The trial court denied the applications as construed, finding defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing the value of the vehicle underlying the vehicle theft conviction in case No. 88721, defendant was not entitled to resentencing as he had completed his terms in both cases, and pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (h), he was not entitled to a hearing at this stage of the proceedings.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant appeals from the trial court's orders. After reviewing his appellate briefs and the arguments he made to the trial court, we agree with the two superior court judges in this case and with the People's contention in this appeal that defendant's claims are largely incomprehensible. It appears that he seeks to collaterally attack his 1989 convictions, claims there was resentencing error under section 1170.18, and he was entitled to a hearing on his applications in the trial court.
Proposition 47 allows a defendant to reduce certain qualifying prior felony convictions to misdemeanors. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f).) It does not authorize any other collateral attack on a prior conviction, such as those raised by defendant here. (See People v. Clark (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 863, 875 [resentencing provision of Proposition 36, § 1170.126, does not authorize collateral attack on prior strike conviction].) Since defendant has served his sentence on the prior convictions in this case, he was not entitled to resentencing or a hearing in the trial court. (See § 1170.18, subd. (a) ["was serving a sentence"], (h) ["Unless requested by the applicant, no hearing is necessary to grant or deny an application filed under subsection (f)"].) Nor can defendant relitigate claims rejected by us in his prior Proposition 47 appeal. While successive section 1170.18 petitions are allowed in certain cases (see, e.g., People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 140 [affirming denial of petition without prejudice to filing a successive petition establishing evidence of eligibility]), defendant has not provided any new evidence or changes in the law warranting reconsideration of our previous opinion. Any attack on our previous opinion is therefore precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 252.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment (orders) are affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
MAURO, J.