Filed 7/31/14 P. v. Morales CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060545
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB036627)
RALPH RUBEN MORALES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On April 7, 2005, a jury found defendant Ralph Ruben Morales guilty of four
counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211, counts 1-2, 4-5.) Following a bifurcated trial on
April 12, 2005, the trial court found true allegations that defendant suffered four strike
priors (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and that defendant
suffered four prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
After numerous continuances, defendant was sentenced on May 10, 2006. The
trial court denied defendant’s request to strike his strike convictions for purposes of
sentencing pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The
court sentenced defendant pursuant to the three strikes law to a total indeterminate term
of 180 years to life as follows: 25 years to life on each count, to run consecutively, plus
four consecutive 20-year terms based on the true finding enhancements of prior serious
felony convictions.
On January 8, 2014, defendant, acting in propria persona, filed a petition in the
superior court requesting a recall of his sentence and resentencing pursuant to The Three
Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act). At an ex parte hearing conducted on January
23, 2014, the trial court concluded defendant was not eligible for resentencing under the
Reform Act because he had been convicted of serious felonies. (See Pen. Code,
§§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(19).) The court denied the petition.
2
Defendant timely appealed from the denial of his petition.1
DISCUSSION2
After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and
potential arguable issues, and requesting that this court undertake an independent review
of the record on appeal.
We invited defendant to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an
independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
1 We note that the question of whether a prisoner may appeal the denial of a
petition for recall and resentencing under the Reform Act is pending before the Supreme
Court. (Teal v. Superior Court, review granted July 31, 2013, S211708.) Even if we
were to conclude such an order is not appealable, we could, in the interests of judicial
economy, treat this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a petition for writ of
mandate. (See People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 928, fn. 4 [treating an appeal
from an nonappealable order as a petition for writ of habeas corpus]; Drum v. Superior
Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 845, 852-853 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [treating an appeal
as a petition for writ of mandate due to the uncertainty in the law about appealability].)
Therefore, we decline to dismiss the appeal, and we will conduct an independent review
of the record on appeal as requested by appellate counsel.
2 Because defendant appeals from an order denying his postjudgment petition for
resentencing, the underlying facts of his 2005 convictions are neither included in the
record nor applicable to this appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4