Court Opinion

ID: 9943222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 21:03:56.301069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:33.724867
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Valles CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F086033
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. F14902191)
                    v.

    JOSEPH ANTHONY VALLES,                                                                OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Houry A.
Sanderson, Judge.
         J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
       Defendant Joseph Anthony Valles brings this appeal after he was resentenced by
the trial court. Counsel for defendant has submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this court to conduct an independent review of the
record on appeal. Although we offered defendant the opportunity to present his own
brief on appeal through a letter, he has not responded.
       Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s direction in
Kelly, we provide a brief description of the relevant facts and the procedural history of
the case relevant to this appeal. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
       On April 7, 2015, defendant pled guilty to a robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211, a felony;
count 1), admitted all prior convictions alleged in the information (§§ 667, subd. (a)−(i),
1170.12, subds. (a)−(d)) and acknowledged that a robbery is a strike offense under
sections 667, subdivision (b)(1) and 1170.12. At this time, defendant also acknowledged
through his plea, he would be sentenced to a stipulated term of 35 years, and further, that
he was waiving his right to appeal the sentence.
       When defendant was formally sentenced in June 2015, the remaining three felony
counts and one misdemeanor count alleged in the information were dismissed.
Defendant was then sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the robbery,
and two additional five-year terms, each a determinate term meant to run consecutively,
as allowed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).2

1      All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      While the minute order references section “667.5(a)(1),” as the source for these
particular enhancements, the abstract of judgment correctly references section 667,
subdivision (a)(1).

                                             2.
       On October 5, 2022, a letter from Secretary Kathleen Allison, of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation was filed in the Fresno County Superior Court, giving
the court the authority to resentence defendant under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1),
due to a change in the sentencing laws. The letter noted:

              “The enhancements pursuant to [section] 667[, subdivision] (a)(1),
       provides for the imposition of a consecutive five-year enhancement on any
       person convicted of a serious felony for each previous conviction of a
       serious felony (or other qualifying conviction) brought and tried separately.
       Courts were previously barred from striking prior serious felony
       convictions for purposes of enhancement under this section. However,
       effective January 1, 2019, courts are now authorized to exercise their
       discretion to strike prior serious felony convictions for purposes of
       enhancement under this section, or to strike the punishment for the
       enhancement under this section, pursuant to [section] 1385.”
Secretary Allison stated that defendant’s underlying case was reviewed and consideration
was given to both the changes in the law and defendant’s “in-prison conduct.” The letter
then made the recommendation to recall defendant’s sentence so he could be resentenced
under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1).
       On January 25, 2023, defendant filed a brief in support of resentencing that raised
challenges to aspects of his current sentence and contained a number of exhibits related to
his activities while incarcerated. Among the requests made by defendant was that nine of
his 10 “strike” priors be stricken from the record for purposes of sentencing in this case,
relying on the standard set out in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th
497, 504. The People filed their responsive brief on January 31, 2023, stating their
opposition to this specific request made by defendant, but acknowledging the court had
the authority to revisit various parts of his sentence.
       On February 16, 2023, the trial court held a hearing to consider resentencing
defendant. In addition to the legal arguments, the court heard evidence about a K-9
program defendant was involved in while in prison, and his success with that program.
Defendant also addressed the court on his remorse for the crimes he had committed and

                                              3.
his activities while in prison. The court then took the matter under submission, indicating
it would rule on the matter at the next hearing.
       On March 23, 2023, after reviewing the various arguments presented by the
parties, and rejecting the motion to strike nine out of 10 of the prior “strike” convictions
committed by defendant, the court stated:

               “At this time, [defendant], the [c]ourt taking into consideration all
       the documents presented, appreciating your efforts to change your life and
       become a better productive human being, which it looks like you are and
       can do, I will recall and I’ve already recalled the sentence, reinstate the
       same sentence with all of the same prior sentence conditions, find that you
       are not eligible for a grant of probation, deny you probation and to [send]
       you [to] the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on the one count,
       the sole count in this case, that was pled or admitted to and that would be a
       [section] 211, second degree robbery, and that would be enhanced by the
       priors that you had admitted, so you will receive 25 years to life just on that
       one count. The two five year priors, pursuant to
       [section] 667[, subdivision] (a)(1), are both stricken in the interest of justice
       by the [c]ourt’s discretion. Again, having re-reviewed your record, your
       accomplishments, finding that you have made changes in your life,
       therefore, the [c]ourt will remove those. So instead of 35 years to life, your
       sentence will become 25 years to life.”
The court then suspended any fines and fees still due in their entirety. However, existing
restitution orders for the victims of his crimes were not suspended.3

3       Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, a Wende analysis is not
generally available for postconviction relief. (Id. at p. 222.) The Delgadillo court held
Wende reviews “do not apply to an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, even if
the defendant has a state-created right to the appointment of counsel for that appeal.” (Id.
at p. 226.) “This is because ‘there is no constitutional right to the effective assistance of
counsel’ in state postconviction proceedings.” (Ibid.) The letter sent to defendant after
appellate counsel filed his brief did not contain a warning we could dismiss the appeal if
no supplemental brief or letter was filed by defendant. To avoid further delay by sending
a new letter to defendant, we have chosen to exercise our discretion and review the record
on appeal.

                                              4.
                                    DISCUSSION
      Having carefully reviewed the entire record provided for defendant’s resentencing,
we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pp. 441–443.)
                                   DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                           5.