Filed 11/18/20 P. v. Connor CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDDIE BOYD CONNOR, JR.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B301442

(Super. Ct. No. BA323311)

(Los Angeles County)

Eddie Boyd Connor, Jr. purports to appeal an order 

denying his resentencing claims presented to the trial court by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the attempted 

appeal as not from an appealable order. (Robinson v. Lewis

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895; Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 

836; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7 [no appeal lies 

from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus], 

superseded by statute as stated in Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 

Cal.5th 808, 842; In re Sagin (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 570, 578 

[petitioner whose habeas petition is denied by the superior court 
2

has no right to appeal that decision; recourse is to file new 

petition in reviewing court].)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 28, 2008, a jury convicted Connor of attempted 

murder, and found that he committed the crime willfully, 

deliberately, and with premeditation; he personally used and 

intentionally fired a firearm that caused great bodily injury; he 

personally inflicted great bodily injury; and he committed the 

crime to benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, 

subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)-(d), 12022.7, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. 

(b)(1)C), (b)(4).)1 Connor admitted suffering a prior serious felony 

strike conviction which the trial court later struck in the interest

of justice. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(d), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 1385, 

subd. (a); People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 

497.)

On August 25, 2008, the trial court sentenced Connor to a 

prison term of 40 years to life, consisting of a life term for the 

attempted murder, a 15-year minimum-eligibility-for-parole term 

pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5), and a 25-year term 

for the personal firearm use finding pursuant to section 12022.53, 

subdivision (d). The trial court imposed various fines and fees 

and awarded Connor 512 days of presentence custody credit.

Connor appealed and raised the sole argument that the 

trial court failed to sua sponte instruct regarding attempted 

voluntary manslaughter. In an unpublished opinion, we rejected 

the argument, noting that Connor testified at trial that he did not 

shoot the victim (a rival gang member) and was not present when 

the victim was shot by an unknown person. (People v. Conner

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code

unless stated otherwise.
3

(Aug. 13, 2009, B211016).)2 Connor then filed a petition for 

review with our Supreme Court which that court later summarily 

denied.

On May 17, 2019, Connor, in propria persona, filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court by the

standard Judicial Council Form HC-001. He attached three 

exhibits (marked C, D, and E) to the form. Connor stated that he 

was seeking a modification of his sentence pursuant to section 

1170, subdivision (d) and referred to the attachments as his 

grounds for relief.

Exhibit C was a partial copy of our 2009 unpublished 

opinion. Exhibit D presented two claims: Connor’s sentence was

unlawful pursuant to People v. Le (2015) 61 Cal.4th 416 and 

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, regarding two firearm 

enhancements imposed for a single offense; and Senate Bill No. 

620 now permits trial courts the discretion to strike a firearm 

enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (h).) Connor attached two 

documents to Exhibit D: a copy of the reporter’s transcript of his 

August 25, 2008, sentencing hearing, and a “Legal Status 

Summary” from the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR)that reflects Connor’s sentence of 40 years 

to life, but also inexplicably states a minimum term of 47 years. 

Exhibit E is a copy of a letter from counsel acknowledging that

Connor may be entitled to a hearing pursuant to People v. 

Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin).

2 We grant Connor’s request to take judicial notice of the 

unpublished opinion and the docket entries regarding the direct 

appeal. (Evid. Code, § 452.) Connor is also known as Eddie 

Lamont Conner.
4

Exhibit E also includes, however, a copy of Connor’s 

handwritten inmate request questioning his post-conviction 

custody credit as well as the 47-years-to-life term reflected on a 

CDCR document. The supervisor response written on the bottom 

of the document is partly illegible, but states that seven years 

must be added to Connor’s 40-years-to-life term. 

On July 12, 2019, the trial court filed a written ruling 

regarding Connor’s petition. The court denied Connor’s requests 

for resentencing relying upon section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2), 

but issued an order to show cause regarding the request for a 

Franklin hearing. 

Connor then filed a notice of appeal referencing application 

of Senate Bill No. 620 and section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to his 

sentence. His appellate brief, however, solely contests the 

CDCR’s apparent misunderstanding of the length of his 

minimum term for parole eligibility.

DISCUSSION

Connor acknowledges that he may not appeal the trial 

court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, but requests that 

we exercise our discretion and treat the notice of appeal as a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Garrett (1998) 67 

Cal.App.4th 1419, 1423 [reviewing court may treat notice of 

appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the interests of 

judicial economy].) He adds that his petition and the notice of 

appeal were filed in propria persona, contain a “technical defect,” 

and that the label given to a petition or claim is not 

determinative. (Cox v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 855, 

859.)

We decline to exercise our discretion to treat Connor’s 

present claim of CDCR error as a petition for writ of habeas 
5

corpus because the claim was not sufficiently presented to the 

trial court. Connor’s claim of CDCR error was embedded in an 

exhibit attached to his petition, which petition asserted 

sentencing issues regarding the firearm enhancement. The trial 

court was not sufficiently apprised and given an opportunity to 

rule upon the claim Connor now asserts. The court was not 

required to decipher Connor’s poorly organized and sometimes 

illegible exhibit to ferret out additional claims not asserted in the 

cover pages of the Judicial Council Form HC-0001. A 

determination otherwise would not be fair to the trial court and a 

waste of judicial resources. Moreover, a complaint of this nature

is best addressed to the court that issued the judgment. 

(Robinson v. Lewis, supra, 9 Cal.5th 883, 895 [“The superior court 

that rendered the judgment is best equipped to consider the claim 

in the first instance . . . and to grant relief”].) Connor may bring 

a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court which may 

then order the CDCR to correct its records. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.
6

Leslie A. Swain, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Allison H. Chung, 

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.