Filed 9/18/14 P. v. Jamison CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. DANNIE LEE JAMISON, Defendant and Appellant. G049699 (Super. Ct. No. 95CF0169)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a postjudgment order of th e Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 In 1996, a jury convicted defendant Dannie Le e Jamison of second degree robbery and second degree burglary. The trial court found true allegations that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions and sentenced defe ndant to 25 years to life for the robbery, plus a consecutiv e 10-year term for the prio r convictions; it stayed the sentence for the burglary. This court affirmed the judgment in 1998. ( People v. Jamison (Oct. 5, 1998, G020736) [nonpub. opn.].) In late 2013, defendant filed a pet ition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (e). The court denied the petition, finding defendant’s prior conviction for robbery made him statutorily ineligible for relief. Defendant timely appealed and we appo inted counsel to represent him. In his brief, counsel summarized the proceedings and the facts of the case, and while not arguing against his client, stated he had f ound no arguable issues to present. ( Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel suggest s we consider whether the court correctly determined
defendant was not entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126.
We notified defendant he could file written argument on his own behalf. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they have merit or fail. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief, asserting that his underlying sentence was illegal because his prior convictions were based on a plea bargain, which was a contra ct and cannot be used to enhance his
sentence. The claim lacks merit beca use the law is to the contrary. ( People v. Gibson (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1070 [use of guilty plea to show prior conviction under the
“Three Strikes” law did not violate the federal or state Constitution’s contract clause]; see Way v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 165, 180 [a plea bargain “vests no rights
other than those which relate to the immedi ate disposition of the case”].) The issue is3 also not within the scope of an appeal from the ruling on the petition to recall his
sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126.
We have considered the issues ra ised by defendant an d his counsel, and
also reviewed the record acco rding to our ob ligations under Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders, supra , 386 U.S. 738. We found no arguable issues on appeal.
The order is affirmed.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, J.

FYBEL, J.