Court Opinion

ID: 9352091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 21:03:26.774288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:52.832518
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/4/23 P. v. Salazar CA2/4
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
            SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                   DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                    B318556

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. BA373747
         v.

 LUIS SALAZAR,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
 Angeles County, Henry J. Hall, Judge. Dismissed.
      Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
 Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       In 2010, defendant and appellant Luis Salazar pled no
contest to charges of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and possession of
heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) He also admitted
he sustained prior strike and serious felony convictions for
robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) The trial court struck all
but one prior strike. It sentenced Salazar to state prison for 2
years on the robbery charge, doubled to 4 years because of the
remaining strike, with a consecutive sentence of 8 months on the
possession charge, doubled to 16 months. It enhanced this
sentence by 10 years for the prior serious felony convictions.
       In 2015, Salazar’s possession charge was reduced to a
misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), and
that sentence was converted to a one-year county jail
sentence. In 2019, the court denied his Proposition 47 petition to
reduce his robbery to a theft conviction.
       Following the 2018 passage of Senate Bill 1393 (2017-2018
Reg. Sess.) which, for the first time, allowed trial courts to
exercise discretion to strike enhancements for prior serious felony
convictions, Salazar filed a petition for resentencing. The trial
court summarily denied the petition, concluding Senate Bill No.
1393 was not retroactive and did not apply to Salazar’s case
because his judgment had become final.
       In 2021, Salazar sought recall, citing Proposition 47,
Senate Bill No. 1393, and Assembly Bill No. 1618 (2019-2020
Reg. Sess.), which, in the interest of public policy, voided plea
bargain provisions that required defendants to generally waive
future benefits of legislative enactments and other beneficial
ameliorative changes in the law (see Pen. Code, § 1016.8). The
trial court filed a written order denying Salazar’s motion. The
court reiterated that Proposition 47 did not apply to robbery and

                                2
Senate Bill No. 1393 did not apply to Salazar because his
judgment had already become final. With respect to Assembly
Bill No. 1618, the court rejected Salazar’s argument that the new
law vested the court with the authority to apply Senate Bill No.
1393 retroactively to Salazar’s already final case. The court noted
that it did not have jurisdiction to resentence Salazar. Salazar
timely appealed.
       Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and
requesting that this court follow the procedures set forth in
People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. The court notified
Salazar he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Salazar did
not file a supplemental brief. This court has no independent duty
to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v.
Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted, Oct.
14, 2020, No. S264278.) We therefore dismiss Salazar’s appeal as
abandoned. (Ibid.)

                                 3
                       DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed.

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                     CURREY, J.
We concur:

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

                                4