Filed 1/21/15 P. v. Romero CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND ROMERO,

Defendant and Appellant. B257749

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA018494)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Lo s Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Raymond Romero, in pro. per.; Richar d B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for De fendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________2 In 1995 Raymond Romero was convicted of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) 1 with findings he had two prior serious fe lony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(d), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d )) and section 667, subdivision (a). Romero was se ntenced to an aggregate indeterminate term of 35 years to life in state prison. Romero appealed, a nd this court affirmed the judgment. ( People v.

Romero (Apr. 16, 1997, B0990 39) [nonpub. opn.].) In June 2014 Romero filed a petition for recall of his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, which, effective November 7, 2012, permits an in mate serving a third strike sentence to petition for recall of sent ence and request resentencing. The statute limits eligibility to individual s whose current convictions are for felonies that are not

defined as serious or violent felonies unde r section 667.5, subdivision (c), or 1192.7, subdivision (c). (§ 1170.126 , subd. (e)(1).) Because Rome ro’s current conviction for first degree burglary is a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18), the trial court denied the petition. Romero filed a timely notice of appeal. (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 597, 601 [denial of a motion for recall of sentence is an appealable order].) We appointed counsel to represent Romero on appeal.

After examination of the r ecord, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 21, 2014 we advise d Romero he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On November 10, 2014 we received a handwritten four-page lette r in which Romero a sserted his sentence of 35 years to life was improperly calcu lated and constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the evidence was in sufficient to support his curre nt burglary conviction and one prior strike conviction and the trial court erred in refusing his trial counsel’s request the jury be instructed on a lesser included offense. We do not address these claims, which are properly raised in a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, not an appeal from an order denying recall of sentence.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for r ecall of sentence is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

WOODS, J.

ZELON, J.