Court Opinion

ID: 9954685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 19:02:53.022286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:11.966047
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/26/24 P. v. Roundtree CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H051254
                                                                    (Santa Clara County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. 210300)

             v.

 RICHARD ALLEN ROUNDTREE,

             Defendant and Appellant.

                                                     THE COURT1
         Richard Allen Roundtree appeals from an order denying his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which declares invalid certain sentence
enhancements.2 Counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216 (Delgadillo), and Roundtree subsequently filed a supplemental brief on his own
behalf. This court requested additional supplemental briefing. Having considered all the
supplemental briefs, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.

         Before Greenwood, P. J., Bamattre-Manoukian, J., and Adams, J. (Judge of the
         1

Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution).
       2
         All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated.
                       I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
       In 1999, Roundtree pleaded no contest to seven counts of second degree robbery
(§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), eight counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237), and one
count of threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (§ 422).
Roundtree admitted allegations that he was armed with or personally used a firearm
during the commission of all of the counts except for one, which allegation was
dismissed (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 1203.06, 12022.53, subd. (b)).
He also admitted that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction for forcible oral
copulation (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7), that he had served a prior prison term for forcible
oral copulation in violation of section 288a, subdivision (d) (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and that
he had two prior convictions which qualified as strikes (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i); 1170.12).
       At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Roundtree to a total term of 50
years to life in prison. The abstract of judgment indicates that the court stayed the one-
year prior prison term enhancement. This court affirmed the judgment following review
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (People v. Roundtree (Dec. 29, 2000,
H020267) [nonpub. opn.].)
       In 2014, Roundtree filed a petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes
Law Reform Act and section 1170.126. The trial court denied his petition, finding that he
was ineligible for resentencing because of his offenses for robbery and false
imprisonment as well as his past strike offenses for “sexually violent offenses.” This
court dismissed Roundtree’s subsequent appeal from that order, finding that he did not
raise an arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Roundtree (Dec. 11, 2014, H040748)
[nonpub. opn.].)
       In May 2023, Roundtree filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to section
1172.75, which makes invalid certain sentence enhancements imposed prior to January 1,

       3
           The underlying facts are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal.

                                               2
2020. The district attorney opposed the motion. The parties agreed that the trial court
would first determine whether a prison prior that was stayed or stricken qualified as a
sentence enhancement under section 1172.75. If the trial court found that Roundtree did
qualify on that basis, the People reserved the right to raise additional arguments
concerning his eligibility. The trial court ruled that section 1172.75 applies only to prior
prison term enhancements that were imposed and executed rather than imposed and
stayed, and thus denied Roundtree’s motion. Roundtree timely appealed from that order.
       On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 231-232. We notified Roundtree that he could file
a supplemental brief on his own behalf, and that failure to do so would result in dismissal
of the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at p. 232.) Roundtree filed a timely supplemental brief,
generally alleging that the lesser punishment authorized by the resentencing statutes
should apply to him, and asking this court to exercise its discretion to independently
review the record. Shortly thereafter, this court published its opinion in People v.
Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 (Renteria). We afforded the parties the opportunity
to file supplemental briefing to address the impact, if any, of Renteria on this matter,
insofar as it addresses the application of section 1172.75 to prior prison term
enhancements that were stayed but not executed. In response, the Attorney General
indicated that Roundtree was not eligible for resentencing irrespective of this issue
because the trial court imposed the enhancement for a prior conviction for a sexually
violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b).
Roundtree did not address this claim in his supplemental brief, and elected not to file a
reply to the Attorney General’s brief. We thus review Roundtree’s challenge under the
framework set forth in Delgadillo. We conclude that he does not raise an arguable issue
on appeal, and affirm the trial court’s order.

                                                 3
                                       II. DISCUSSION
       Citing In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, in his initial supplemental brief,
Roundtree contends that the fact that the Legislature amended the statute to lessen the
punishment demonstrates “that a lighter punishment is proper for the commission of the
prohibited act,” and that the Legislature must have intended the lighter penalty to apply
“to every case to which it constitutionally could apply.” Roundtree does not raise an
arguable issue on appeal. An issue is arguable if it has a reasonable potential for success,
and, if resolved favorably for the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a
modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
       Here, the Legislature has expressly excluded the application of section 1172.75 to
the prior conviction in Roundtree’s case. The statute provides, “Any sentence
enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually
violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd (a), italics added.) A felony
violation of former section 288a is considered a “sexually violent offense” under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 6600.4 Roundtree admitted, both in the trial court and in his
supplemental brief in this appeal, that he had served a prior prison term for forcible oral
copulation in violation of former section 288a, subdivision (d). Roundtree does not raise
an argument in any of his briefs to challenge the language of section 1172.75 explicitly
excepting his prior prison term enhancement from resentencing under the statute.5

       4
         Former section 288a was amended and renumbered to section 287 effective
January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 49.)
       5
         As section 1172.75 does not apply to Roundtree, we need not consider the impact
of the Renteria decision in his case.

                                               4
      Because Roundtree raises no arguable issue in his supplemental brief, we affirm
the trial court’s post-conviction order. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496,
503-504.)
                                   III. DISPOSITION
      The order denying Roundtree’s resentencing petition is affirmed.

                                            5