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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAVON GOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B266888

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA172780)

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

C.H. Rehm, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

William J. Capriola, under appointment 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 Fair 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 three prior “strike” 

convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)),1for attempted 

murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), robbery (§ 211), and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211),

and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, 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 We affirmed the judgment in unpublished 

opinions. (People v. Good (May 21, 2008, B198893; June 22, 2000, B132252) [nonpub. 

opns.].)

On February 28, 2013, Good petitioned for recall of his sentence and resentencing 

pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three 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 disqualifying offense. We affirmed the trial court’s ruling in 

an unpublished opinion. (People v. Good (Sept. 11, 2015, B261180) [nonpub. opn.].)2

 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 We take judicial notice of our unpublished opinions. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, 

subd. (a), 452, subd. (d).)
3

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

ch. 749, 2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) As pertinent here, that act amended Health and Safety 

Code section 11351.5 to 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 June 1, 2015, Good filed in the superior court 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 

compliance 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 Three 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 

entitled to resentencing. Good appeals.

DISCUSSION

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening 

brief that raised no issues, and requested this court to conduct an independent review of 

the record pursuant to People v. Wende (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 amendment 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, the trial 

court’s ruling was correct. The Three Strikes law constitutes an alternative sentencing 

scheme. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 527.) Because 

Good was properly sentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes 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.) The 

amendment to the determinate sentencing triad is therefore inapplicable 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 issues 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.