Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Thompson CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY LAMAR THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B261188

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. LA023004)

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

Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. 

Timothy Lamar Thompson, 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

Following a plea agreement, Timothy Lamar Thompson was convicted in 1996 of 

second degree robbery with special findings he had suffered one serious felony 

conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a),1and three 

serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law. The 

trial court sentenced Thompson to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of 

30 years to life. 

On October 24, 2014 the trial court denied with prejudice Thompson’s petition for 

recall of sentence pursuant to section 1170.126 on the ground Thompson was ineligible 

for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2), because his current 

conviction was for robbery, a serious and violent felony (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(19); 667.5, 

subd. (c)(9)). Thompson appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent Thompson on appeal. After examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 20, 

2015 we advised Thompson he had 30 days within which to personally submit any 

contentions or issues he wished us to consider. 

On April 6, 2015 we received a six-page typed response in which Thompson does 

not dispute that his 1996 conviction for robbery makes him statutorily ineligible for 

resentencing. Instead, Thompson argues the application of section 1170.126 deprived 

him of his right to equal protection by depriving him of the opportunity, unlike inmates 

serving a third strike sentence for an offense not defined as a serious or violent crime, to 

demonstrate that resentencing him as a second strike offender would not pose an 

unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Because those two groups of inmates 

serving third strike sentences are not similarly situated, Thompson has failed to state a 

viable equal protection claim. (People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328 [first 

prerequisite to an equal protection claim is to show state adopted a classification affecting 

similarly situated groups in an unequal manner].)

 

1 Statutory references are to this code. 
3

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Thompson’s attorney on 

appeal has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable 

issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 

756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441.) 

DISPOSTION 

The order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J. 

We concur: 

ZELON, J. 

SEGAL, J.