Filed 11/5/15 P. v. DeLaCerda CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VICTOR HUERTA DELACERDA,

Defendant and Appellant. H042171

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. C9918501)

In 1999, appellant Victor Huerta DeLaCerda was convicted of second degree

robbery and admitted strikes and serious felony enhancements . (Pen. Code, §§ 211

-

212 .5 , subd. (c), 667, subd. (a), (b)

- (i)

, 667.5, subd. (b), 1170. 12. ) He was sentenced to a

total term of 3 0 years to life. 1 On December 24, 2014, appellant, acting in propria

persona, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the s uperior c ourt arguing , among

other things, that he was enti tled to relief pursuant to Proposition 47. On December 29,

2014, the superior court denied the petition in its entirety.

As to appellant’s request for relief under Proposition 47, the trial court found him

ineligible for resentencing , because his conviction for robbery is not one of the offenses

1 We note that c ounsel for appellant failed to provide a summary of the facts of

the underlying crime in the opening brief and the record before us does not contain any of

the original charging documents or the abstract of judgment. The cursory facts

enumerated here regarding the underlying charges are taken exclusively from appellant’s

filings in the trial court and his supplemental brief.2

enumerated in the resentencing provision s of Penal Code section 1170.18. The trial court

a lso found that Proposition 47 does not provide “for the retroactive amendment of an

enhancement allegation used to increase a sentence already imposed.” This timely appeal

ensued.

On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent appellant in this court. Appointed

counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496

( Serrano ) ) , which c oncedes that the trial court’s order is appealable only to the extent that

it denies the petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 . Further, the

brief only states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues

.

Pursuant to Serrano

, on July 23 , 2015 we notified appellant of h is right to submit

written argument in h is own behalf within 30 days. On August 3 , 2015

, we received a

supplemental brief from appellant. In his supplemental brief, the appellant recites the

procedural history of his underlying conviction and of his repetitive habeas petitions in

the trial court , reiterates the claims he made in those habeas petition s, and makes a

number of arguments directed at challenging the validity of his underlying plea,

conviction and sentencing. Nothing in appellant ’s supplemental brief raises an arguable

issue on appeal from a denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section

1170.18

. Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal

. ( Serrano , supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at

pp. 503

- 50 4.)

D ISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.3 _____________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ PREMO , J

.

_________________________________ ELIA, J.

People v. DeLaCerda

H0 42171