Court Opinion

ID: 9372090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 19:03:14.913067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.707851
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/17/23 P. v. Cresham CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B320204

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. MA075346
         v.

WILLIAM MARTIN CRESHAM,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.

     Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
       We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
       On February 5, 2019, the People filed a four-count
information against appellant. Count 1 charged assault by
means likely to produce great bodily injury, a violation of Penal
Code1 section 245, subdivision (a)(4). Count 2 charged criminal
threats, a violation of section 422. Counts 3 and 4 charged
misdemeanor contempt of court, violations of section 166,
subdivision (c)(1). As to Counts 1 and 2, the information alleged
appellant was previously convicted of two serious and/or violent
felonies and suffered two prison priors in violation of sections 447
subdivisions (b) through (j) and 665.5. As to Count 2, the
information also alleged appellant suffered two prior serious
felony convictions in violation of section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
On May 3, 2019, a jury convicted appellant of all four counts and,
in a bifurcated bench trial, the court found appellant had
sustained the prior convictions and prison priors as alleged.
       At sentencing on December 19, 2019, the trial court struck
the five-year prison priors alleged as to Count 1. The court
imposed eight years in state prison on Count 1: the upper term of
four years doubled pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1). It
sentenced appellant to 25 years to life on Count 2. It added two
5-year prison priors as to Count 2, for a total aggregate term of
25 years to life plus 18 years. Appellant was also sentenced on
Counts 3 and 4 to concurrent time.
       On June 11, 2021, this court affirmed the convictions and
sentence. (People v. Cresham (June 11, 2021, B303803) [nonpub.
opn.].)

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
        The charges arose when appellant beat his girlfriend and
threatened to kill her. At the time of the assault, appellant was
also under a 10-year criminal protective order to stay away from
the victim. (People v. Cresham, supra, B303803.)
         On March 7, 2022, appellant filed a petition for recall of
his sentence (specifically the upper term sentence of eight years
on Count 1) based on Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).
He argued the facts justifying the upper term were not found by a
jury, as required by the new law. Senate Bill No. 567 amends
sections 1170 and 1170.1 and provides that the court may impose
a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are
circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the
imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term
and the facts underlying those circumstances have been
stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a
reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by a judge in a court trial.
(§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) However, Senate Bill No. 567 also provides
that the court may consider a defendant’s prior convictions in
determining a sentence based on a certified record of conviction,
without submitting the prior convictions to a jury. (§ 1170, subd.
(b)(3).)
        On April 21, 2022, the trial court denied the petition for
recall of sentence, finding that the upper term previously
imposed on Count 1 was based on prior convictions proven to the
court beyond a reasonable doubt at the bifurcated court trial on
May 3, 2019. On May 6, 2022, appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal.

                                 3
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After
examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no
issues and asked this court to review the record independently,
citing People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. On
November 28, 2022, we advised appellant, pursuant to People v.
Wende, that he had 30 days within which to personally submit
any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant did
not file a supplemental brief.
       We acknowledge we are permitted to decline to
independently review the record before us if all conditions
required by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 are met.
In this appeal, we failed to advise appellant that his appeal
would be dismissed as abandoned if he did not file a
supplemental brief. This advisement is required by People v.
Delgadillo. For that reason, we conduct an independent review
pursuant to People v. Wende. (Delgadillo, at p. 222.)
       We have examined the entire record before us and are
satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his
responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at p. 441.)

                               4
                        DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                  STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              5