Filed 10/9/20 P. v. Moore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306021

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA037355)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Juan Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Affirmed.

Merrick Jose Moore, in pro. per.; and Richard B. Lennon, 

under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Merrick Jose Moore appeals from a postconviction order 

denying his motion for a juvenile fitness hearing and for 

resentencing. His appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court 

to proceed under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. 

In 1997, Moore was convicted of kidnapping for carjacking 

(Pen. Code,1 § 209.5, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), taking a vehicle in 

the possession of another (§ 215, subd. (a); count 3), kidnapping 

(§ 207, subd. (a); counts 4 & 5), burglary (§ 459; count 6), and 

taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, 

subd. (a); count 7). His conviction of counts 3, 4, and 5 were 

overturned on appeal. He was resentenced in 2000, and his 

sentence included a five-year term under section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1). 

On March 13, 2020, Moore filed a motion for a juvenile 

fitness/transfer hearing and for resentencing under Senate Bill 

No. 620. The trial court denied the motion because “Proposition 

57 and Senate Bill [No.] 620 do not apply to matters that are 

final.” 

Moore appealed. His appellate counsel declared he was 

unable to find any arguable issues and asked us to follow the 

procedures in People v. Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496. 

Moore submitted a supplemental brief. We therefore address the 

issues he raises in that supplemental brief. (See generally People 

v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1040.) 

Moore appears to raise issues that were resolved against 

him in his direct appeal, People v. Moore (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 

37. To the extent Moore challenges the sufficiency of the 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code

unless otherwise indicated.
3

evidence to support his convictions, the veracity of witnesses, the 

way the investigation into the crimes occurred, and the 

effectiveness of his trial counsel, those issues are not cognizable 

in this appeal or Moore otherwise fails to demonstrate error.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that no 

arguable issues exist and that his attorney has fully complied 

with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

DHANIDINA, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.