Court Opinion

ID: 9902382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-26 23:02:10.659678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.720814
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 P. v. Beadle CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B327520
                                                            (Super. Ct. No. NA105727)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 JEFFREY F. BEADLE,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Jeffrey F. Beadle appeals the denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. In 2018, a jury
convicted appellant of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor
(§ 261.5, subd. (c); count 1), human trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1,
subd. (c)(1)), pimping of a minor (§ 266h, subd. (b)(1)), pandering
with a minor (§ 266i, subd. (b)(1)), and seven counts of dissuading
a witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)). Prior strike and
prior prison term allegations (§ 667, subd. (a)(1), former § 667.5,

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless

otherwise noted.
subd. (b)) were found true based on appellant’s prior 2011
conviction and prison term for committing a lewd act on a child
under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). As to count 1, the jury also
found true an allegation that appellant personally inflicted great
bodily injury in committing the offense (§ 12022.7). The trial
court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 47 years in state
prison. Imposition of the one-year prior prison term
enhancement under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) was
stayed.
       When appellant was convicted and sentenced, defendants
were subject to a one-year prison term enhancement for each true
finding on allegations they had served a prior prison term and
had thereafter remained free from custody for at least five years.
(Former § 667.5, subd. (b).) Effective January 1, 2020, as enacted
pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 136, section 667.5, subdivision (b)
was amended to limit prior prison term enhancements to prior
terms imposed for sexually violent offenses “as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code.” (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; People v. Escobedo (2023) 95
Cal.App.5th 440, 445 (Escobedo).)
       The Legislature subsequently enacted SB 483, which
sought to make the changes effected by SB 136 retroactive.
(Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1; Escobedo, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at
p. 445.) SB 483 went into effect on January 1, 2022, and added
former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75) to the Penal Code.
(Ibid.) Section 1172.75 provides that “[a]ny sentence
enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020,
pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any
enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent
offense . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a), italics added.)

                                   2
       Section 1172.75 also establishes a mechanism to provide
affected defendants a remedy for those legally invalid
enhancements. Subdivision (b) directs the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) and the correctional administrator of each county to
“identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term
for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in
subdivision (a) and . . . provide the name of each person, along
with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or
docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the
enhancement.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) After the trial court
receives from the CDCR and county correctional administrator
the information included in subdivision (b) of the statute, “the
court shall review the judgment and verify that the current
judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in
subdivision (a),” and if so, “recall the sentence and resentence the
defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)
       In December 2022, the trial court reviewed appellant’s case
pursuant to section 1172.75 and found him ineligible for
resentencing because (1) his prior conviction for committing a
lewd act on child (§ 288, subd. (a)) is a sexually violent offense,
and (2) he is not currently serving a sentence based on the
enhancement because imposition of the one-year enhancement
was stayed.
       Appellant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel
to represent him. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief
raising no issues in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and requested that we independently
review the record for error. We advised appellant of his right to
personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to

                                 3
consider. Appellant subsequently filed a supplemental brief
contending the court erred in declining to resentence him because
his prior conviction for committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288,
subd. (a)) does not qualify a sexually violent offense. He also
claims he is eligible for relief under section 1172.75
notwithstanding that imposition of the sentencing enhancement
for the prior conviction was stayed.2 We are not persuaded.
       One-year prior prison term enhancements remain valid for
convictions of crimes that are defined in subdivision (b) of section
6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as sexually violent
offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Accordingly, defendants serving
sentences that include such enhancements are not entitled to
resentencing relief under section 1172.75. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).)
Lewd conduct on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) is
identified as a sexually violent offense (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 6600, subd. (b).) Contrary to appellant’s claim, section 288 is
not “considered a wobbler” (i.e, subject to punishment as either a
misdemeanor or a felony) that “had to be placed by a judge or
prosecutor within the scope of” section 667.5. Because appellant’s
prior conviction under section 288, subdivision (a) was for a
sexually violent offense, the court correctly found he was not
eligible for resentencing under section 1172.5. In light of this
conclusion, we need not address appellant’s alternative
contention that he would otherwise be eligible for relief under

      2 Because appellant filed a supplemental brief, we are

“required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that
brief and . . . issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                 4
section 1172.75 even though imposition of the one-year
enhancement for the prior conviction was stayed.3
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                      CODY, J.

We concur:

      GILBERT, P. J.

      BALTODANO, J.

      3 After appellant filed his supplemental brief, he submitted

a copy of the abstract of judgment on his prior conviction for
committing a lewd act on a child in violation of section 288,
subdivision (a) (Los Angeles County Superior Ct. Case no.
VA110758) and requested that it be attached to his brief.
Although we grant the request, the abstract merely provides
further support for the conclusion that he is not entitled to relief
under section 1172.75.

                                  5
                    Laura Laesecke, Judge
             Superior Court County of Los Angeles
               ______________________________

     Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              6