Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Ortiz CA2/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

RICARDO ORTIZ, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B260088 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. VA021153) 

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

William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. 

_____ 

 Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

______ 
2

 On June 18, 2014, Ricardo Ortiz filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to 

Penal Code section 1170.1261

, which codifies part of the “Three Strikes Reform Act” 

(Prop. 36, § 6, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), effective Nov. 7, 2012). 

On October 20, 2014, the trial court denied the petition with prejudice on the ground 

that Ortiz’s third-strike offense rendered him ineligible for resentencing under 

section 1170.126. Ortiz filed a notice of appeal. (Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 

60 Cal.4th 595, 601 [order denying motion to recall sentence under § 1170.126 is 

appealable].) 

 We appointed counsel to represent Ortiz in the matter. After examining the 

record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that 

we independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On 

February 9, 2015, we directed appointed counsel to immediately send the record on this 

appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Ortiz and notified Ortiz that within 30 days 

from the date of the notice he could submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, 

contention or argument he wished us to consider. After receiving an extension of time, 

Ortiz filed a brief on April 6, 2015. 

 We have examined the entire record and determined that, because Ortiz’s 

third-strike offense for first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460) is a serious felony (§ 1192.7, 

subds. (c)(18)), he cannot benefit from the provisions of section 1170.126. (§ 1170.126, 

subds. (b) & (e)(1).) In his brief, Ortiz fails to present any ground on which the trial 

court erred in denying the petition to recall his sentence. Rather, Ortiz complains that, 

while serving his prison term, he is not receiving the proper amount of conduct credits 

based on his underlying sentence. Ortiz’s complaint is not appropriately raised in this 

appeal from the order denying his petition to recall his sentence. (See In re Carson 

(1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 123, 125 [complaints regarding inappropriate execution of 

sentence raised after appeal from conviction addressed on petition for writ of habeas 

corpus].) We are satisfied that Ortiz’s attorneys have fully complied with their 

 

1

 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3

responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The order is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 ROTHSCHILD, P. J. 

We concur: 

 CHANEY, J. 

 JOHNSON, J.