Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Good CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 specifie d 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Responde nt,

v.

RAVON GOOD , Defendant and Appellant. B 266888
( Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA172780 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
C.H. Rehm, Jr., Judge

. Affirmed. William J. Capriola , under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________2

Defendant and appellant Ravon Good appeals the trial court’s denial of his
motion for resentencing pursuant to the California Fai r Sentencing Act. We affirm the trial court’s order denying Good’s motion

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 1999, a jury convicted Good of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The jury also found Good had suffered t hree prior “strike”
convictions (Pen. Code, § § 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a )

- (d)), 1 for attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), robbery (§ 211), and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211), and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of sec tion 66 7.5, subdivision (b). The trial court declined to strike any of Good’s prior convictions and sentenced him to a term of 26 years to life in prison, consisting of 25 years to life for the cocaine sales offense, and one year for the prior prison term

. We affirmed the judgment in unpublished opinion s . ( People v. Good (May 21, 2008, B198893 ; June 22, 2000, B132252 ) [nonpub.

opn s .].)
On February 28, 2013, Good petitioned for recall of his sentence and resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36, the Thre e Strikes Reform Act of 2012
, section 1170.126. On December 17, 2014, the trial court denied the petition with prejudice , finding Good ineligible for relief because one of his prior convictions was for attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), a disquali fying offense

. We affirmed the trial court’s ruling in an unpublished opinion. ( People v. Good (Sept. 11, 2015, B261180 ) [nonpub. opn.].) 2

1 A ll further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 We take judicial notice of our unpublished opinion s . (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d).)3

In 2014, the Legislature enacted the California Fair Sentencing Act. (Stats. 2014,

c h. 749, 2013

- 2014 Reg. Sess.) As pertinent here, that a ct amended Health and Safety
Code section 11351.5 t o reduce the proscribed sentencing triad for possession of cocaine base for sale from three, four, or five years to two, three, or four years. (Stats. 2014,
ch. 749, § 3.) The Legislature “[found] and declare[d] that cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) and cocaine base (crack cocaine) are two forms of the same drug, the effects of which on the human body are so similar that to mete out unequal punishment for the same crime (e .g., possession for sale of a particular form of cocaine ), is wholly and cruelly unjust.” (Stats. 2014, ch. 749, § 2, subd. (a).) The Legislature’s stated intent was to ensure that the crimes be treated in “an identical manner.” ( Id., subd. (b).)
On Ju ne 1, 2015, Good filed in the superior c ourt a document captioned “Petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1010 recommending lower rate sentence for cocaine base sentences.” Good therein requested that he be resentenced “in compli ance with the changes in sentence time,” and also requested “reduction of the [enhancement] terms.” On June 22, 2015, the trial court denied Good’s petition. It explained Good had not been sentenced under the determinate sentencing law, but under
the Thr ee Strikes law. Under the Three Strikes sentencing scheme, Good received a mandatory term of 25 years to life, plus a consecutive one year enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). Therefore, Good’s petition failed to demonstrate he was

ent itled to resentencing. Good appeals.
DISCUSSION
After r eview of the record, appellant ’s court

- appointed coun sel filed an opening
brief that raised no issues, and requested this court to conduct an independent review of
th e record pursuant to People v. We nde (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441

. On January 8, 2016 , we advised appellant that he had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished this court to consider. We have received no response.4

Even assuming arguendo that the amendmen t to Health and Safety Code
section 11351.5 applies retroactively to Good’s offense of selling cocaine base (as opposed to possessing it for sale)
, that the petition was a proper procedural vehicle by which to request resentencing
, and that the trial court ’s order is appealable, t he trial court’s ruling was correct. The Three Strikes law constitutes an alternat iv e sentencing scheme. ( People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 527.) Because Good was properly sentenced pursuant t o the Three S trikes law, he was subject to a mandatory indeterminate term of 25 years to life. (See People v. Johnson (2015)
61 Cal.4th 674, 680

- 681 ; Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 596 .) T he
amendment to the determinate sentencing triad is therefore in applicable to Good because he was sentenced to an indeterminate term pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant ’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue s exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)5 DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ALDRICH, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J

.

HOGUE, J. 

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.