Court Opinion

ID: 9896291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:23.418519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.620691
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Scott CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081932

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCS314454)

RAMON ANWAR SCOTT,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed.
         Ramon Anwar Scott, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Ramon Anwar Scott appeals from an order denying his petition for
recall of an 18-year prison sentence and for resentencing on his 2021 guilty
plea to three counts of robbery with personal use of a firearm and a strike
prior. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no
arguable issues and requesting that we exercise our discretion to review the
record for potential issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Scott also filed a supplemental brief
on his own behalf.
      We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issue
that would result in a modification or reversal of the trial court’s order.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Scott’s petition.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      In August 2021, Scott was convicted by guilty plea of three counts of

robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211). As to one of the robbery counts, he admitted
that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). He also admitted that he had suffered one strike prior
(§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). As part of the plea bargain, the parties stipulated to a
prison sentence of 18 years. The People dismissed the balance of the charges
against Scott, which included five counts of aggravated kidnapping each
carrying a potential life sentence (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)).
      Consistent with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Scott to the
stipulated 18-year term, including a 10-year sentence for the section
12022.53 firearm enhancement.
      In February 2023, Scott filed a pro per motion for recall and
resentencing under former section 1170.03 (now section 1172.1), section
1170.18, and section 1385 as amended by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021–2022 Reg.
Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 81). He also asked the court to dismiss the firearm
enhancement and the strike prior.
      The trial court denied Scott’s petition by written order. The court
found that: (1) Scott’s request to recall the sentence under section 1172.1 was
beyond the 120-day jurisdictional time limit for the court to consider

1     Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                         2
resentencing on its motion, and a defendant may not make such a motion
himself; (2) under section 1385, subdivision (c)(7), the amendments made by
Senate Bill No. 81 are not retroactive and apply only to cases not yet final,
and Scott’s conviction was already final when he filed his petition; and
(3) Scott was ineligible for relief under section 1170.18.
      Scott appealed from the court’s ruling. His appointed appellate counsel
filed a no-issues brief under Wende and Anders. The only potential issue she
identified was: “Did the trial court prejudicially err by denying the petition
for resentencing?” After we notified Scott of his right to file a supplemental
brief, he submitted a supplemental brief arguing only that he was entitled to
resentencing so that the court could exercise its discretion whether to strike
or dismiss the 10-year firearm enhancement under section 12022.53,
subdivision (h).
                                 DISCUSSION
      Although this appeal is from an order denying Scott’s petition for recall
and resentencing, rather than a direct appeal from his criminal conviction,
we have exercised our discretion to review the entire record under Wende and
Anders. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We have also
considered the potential issues identified by Scott and his counsel. We have
not discovered any arguable issue that would result in a reversal or
modification of the trial court’s ruling. Competent counsel has represented
Scott in this appeal.
      With respect to the issue identified by Scott in his supplemental brief,
“the authority to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement applies only to
nonfinal judgments or to final judgments where the defendant is being
resentenced under some other law.” (People v. Baltazar (2020) 57
Cal.App.5th 334, 340–341.) Scott’s judgment of conviction was already final

                                        3
when he filed his petition in 2023, and he is not entitled to resentencing
under any other law. Moreover, Scott’s 2021 guilty plea and sentencing
occurred several years after the Legislature amended section 12022.53 to
permit courts to “strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be
imposed by this section.” (§ 12022.53, subd. (h).) Absent any contrary
indication, we presume the trial court was aware of this sentencing discretion
when it imposed the 10-year firearm enhancement as part of the stipulated
sentence under the parties’ negotiated plea bargain. (See In re Julian R.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 487, 499 [trial court presumed to have been aware of and
followed applicable law].)
      Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Scott’s petition is affirmed.

                                                               BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

DO, J.

                                       4