Filed 6/27/16 P.v. Edwards CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VINCENSON DESMOND EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B268087

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA028053)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. 

Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant, Vincenson Desmond Edwards, appeals from an order denying his 

Penal Code1section 1170.18, subdivision (a) resentencing petition. We affirm the order.

On August 3, 1998, defendant was convicted of firearm possession by a felon with 

a prior felony conviction. (Former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), see now § 29800, subd. (a)(1).)

Defendant was also convicted of felony evading an officer with willful disregard. 

(Former Veh. Code, § 2800.2, Stats. 1988, ch. 504, § 3, p. 1919). Defendant committed 

the crimes on May 2, 1996. On January 13, 1999, the trial court sentenced defendant to 

53 years to life in state prison. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, 1170.12.) We modified the 

judgment and affirmed. (People v. Edwards (Jun. 6, 2000, B129484) [nonpub. opn.].) 

On July 14, 2014, defendant filed a section 1170.126, subdivision (a) resentencing

petition. The trial court denied the resentencing petition. The trial court found defendant 

had a prior attempted murder conviction, therefore he was ineligible for resentencing. 

(§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(IV), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iv)(IV), 1170.126, subd. 

(e)(3).) We affirmed the order on appeal. (People v. Edwards (Jan. 12, 2015, B258918) 

[nonpub. opn.].)

On September 25, 2015, defendant filed the present section 1170.18, subdivision 

(a) resentencing petition. On October 14, 2015, the trial court denied the petition. The 

court found defendant’s felon in possession and evading convictions did not qualify under 

section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) or (f). Defendant appeals from the denial order.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the 

record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were 

raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested that this court independently 

review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 

441. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.) On March 11, 2016, we 

advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions 

or arguments he wished us to consider.

 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code except where otherwise noted.
3

On April 18, 2016, defendant filed a lengthy brief. Defendant asserts he was 

denied effective assistance of counsel by his trial and appellate attorneys in 1996 through 

2000. Defendant did not raise any ineffectiveness issue on direct appeal from the January 

13, 1999 judgment. The ineffectiveness claims should have been raised in that appeal. 

Those issues are not properly before this court on this subsequent appeal from the 

October 14, 2015 order denying defendant’s section 1170.18, subdivision (a) resentencing

petition. (Cf. People v. Johnson (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 384, 389, fn. 5 [§ 1170.126]; see

generally, e.g., People v. Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 396-397 [sentencing issue

should have been raised during first appeal]; People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 

533, 538 [defendant could not raise sentencing issue for first time in third appeal].) 

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel 

has fully complied with his responsibilities. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion 

that defendant’s convictions did not qualify him for the relief sought. Neither firearm 

possession by a felon nor evading with willful disregard is one of the drug or theft-related 

offenses specified as eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18, subdivision (a).

The order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P.J.

We concur:

BAKER, J.

RAPHAEL, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.