Court Opinion

ID: 9389120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 18:02:35.671669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.301219
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/24/23 P. v. Ellis 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081219

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD156047)

 JUSTIN CARLYLE ELLIS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
         Justin Carlyle Ellis, in pro. per.; and Sally Patrone, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2000, Justin Carlyle Ellis committed a robbery using a pellet gun.

He ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, 1 § 211).
Ellis admitted a deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and
admitted three strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and one serious felony prior

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). His motion to strike the “strike priors” was denied. Ellis
was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 31 years to life, consisting of 25
years to life as a third strike offender, one year for the use of the weapon and
five years for the serious felony prior.
      Ellis filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. The prison
priors which would have been a subject of such petition had already been
stricken and did not form a part of the sentence. The trial court summarily
denied the petition for resentencing, finding Ellis was not eligible for relief
under the statute.
      Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ellis the opportunity to
file his own brief on appeal. Ellis has responded by filing a letter brief. We
will discuss his submission later in this opinion.

                                 DISCUSSION2
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential
merits of this appeal: Whether Ellis’s sentence may be recalled.
      In his submission, Ellis maintains he should be resentenced, but under
a theory which is different than that which was presented to the trial court.
Now, Ellis appears to contend the original sentence violates section 654 in

2    The facts of the original crime are not relevant to the issues in this
appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.
                                           2
that it constitutes multiple punishment. Such reasoning appears to be based
on the third strike sentence. The argument is that using prior robbery
convictions to increase his latest robbery sentence constitutes multiple
punishment in violation of section 654. Regardless of the merits, if any, of
such argument, the petition for resentencing was based on different statutory
grounds. It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
      We have reviewed the entire record, consistent with Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Ellis on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Ellis’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                       HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.

                                       3