Filed 6/17/24 P. v. Lee CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

JAYJAY LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B332902

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

TA140282)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant JayJay Lee (defendant) was convicted of 

attempted murder in 2017 based on evidence he stabbed another 

man with a knife multiple times. The jury found true allegations 

that he personally inflicted great bodily injury within the 

meaning of Penal Code1section 12022.7(a) and personally used a 

deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022(b)(1). The 

trial court imposed a sentence of 13 years in state prison, 

including nine years for attempted murder, three years for the 

great bodily injury enhancement, and one year for the deadly 

weapon enhancement. The trial court dismissed a prior prison 

term enhancement under former section 667.5(b) in the interest 

of justice, but the abstract of judgment dated March 6, 2017, 

erroneously indicated the section 667.5(b) enhancement was 

instead imposed and stayed. 

In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

notified the trial court defendant was potentially eligible for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), 

which, among other things, retroactively invalidated certain

former section 667.5(b) enhancements. (§ 1172.75(a).) The trial 

court appointed counsel for defendant and held a hearing on the 

matter. At the hearing, the trial court determined defendant was 

not eligible for re-sentencing because, notwithstanding the 

erroneous abstract of judgment, the trial court had dismissed the 

former section 667.5(b) enhancement at sentencing. 

Defendant noticed an appeal from the 2023 hearing, and 

this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining 

the record, defendant’s attorney filed an opening brief raising no 

1 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Penal Code.
3

issues and asking that we follow the procedures set forth in

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Defendant’s attorney 

also informed this court that she notified the trial court of the 

error in the abstract of judgment and the trial court had since

ordered the abstract of judgment corrected.

On February 14, 2024, this court advised defendant he had 

30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted 

us to consider. We received no response.

We decline to undertake an independent review of the 

record and dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Delgadillo, supra, 

14 Cal.5th at 232.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MOOR, J. LEE, J.*

*

Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.