Filed 8/17/15 P. v. Walco t t CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRYL A LLEN WALCOTT

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 26 1304

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SA026984 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Frank J.

Johnson , Judge. Affirm ed

.

Richard B. Lennon, under appoin tment by the Court of Appeal, and Darryl Allen

Walcott, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________2

Appellant Darryl Allen Walcott appeals from the denial of his petition to r ecall his

sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126)

. 1 His

appointed counsel filed a Wende brief ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436), and

appellant filed a supplemental brief in pro pria per sona

.

We have reviewed the record under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106

. It

shows that in 1997

, appellant was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery. ( § 211

,

subd. (a) .) The jury also found true the allegation of use of a handgun. (§ 12022.5.) The

trial court found appellant had suffered six prior convictions for robbery and one for

attempted robbery , and sentenced him to 44 years to life. The conviction was affirmed in

People v. Walcott (June 16, 1999, B121073 [nonpub opn.] )

. On June 13, 2014

, appellant

filed a p etition to recall his sentence pursu ant to section 1170.126. The court denied the

petition because appellant’s current felony falls under section 667.5, subdivision (c) (9)

,

rendering him ineli gible for resentencing.

Appellant ’s petition was properly de nied. The resentencing provision of the Three

Strikes Reform Act is reserved for those serving indeterminate life sentences for

convictions “that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) of

Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. ” (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) Appellant ’s

current felony conviction, robbery, falls under the category of a “ ‘ violent felony ’ ” as

defined by section 667.5, subdivision (c)(9).

A ppellant ’s supplemental brief raises issues unrelated to the den ial of his petition

to recall his sentence. He contends that, during trial proceedings, the trial court ordered a

competency hearing but that hearing was never held. He argues that (1) once the trial

court ord e re d a competency hearing , it lacked jurisdic tion to conduct further proceedings

until the hearing took place; and (2) appellant’s counsel, during the direct appeal,

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the court’s failure to hold a

competency hearing. A ppellant has filed several petitions for writ of habeas corpus

raising these issues, all of which have been considered and denied. A ppellant also argues

1 Subs equent statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

the trial court’s imposition of an indeterminate life sentence was “unauthorized.”

Appellant takes issue with the trial court’s remark that he had “ ‘ two attemp[t] s at

rehabilitation which he did not take advantage of, ’ ” because appellant had purportedly

served only a single term in prison. H owever, appellant does not seem to dispute that he

had suffered “7 to 8 strikes” at the tim e of sentencing for his current felony, and thus does

not demonstrate a sentencing error. He argues that five of his strikes were charged in a

single criminal complaint. T hat is irrelevant as it is well

- established that an individual

may suffer multiple strike convictions in one criminal proceeding. ( People v. Fuhrman

(1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 939.)

Most importantly, a ppellant’s arguments are not germane to the instant appeal as

they are not proper grounds for recalling his sentence under section 1170.1 26. Having

reviewed the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues for appeal exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

MANELLA, J.