Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Piper

P. v. Piper

Filed 2/9/10 P. v. Piper CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ISADORE ALEXANDER PIPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

H034637

(Monterey County

Super. Ct. No. SC940466)

In July 2009, defendant Isadore Alexander Piper filed a MOTION FOR THE COURT TO REMOVE AN ILLEGAL STRIKE. He asserted in this motion that his 1978 conviction for shooting into an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, 246) had been illegally used to enhance his prison term for his 1994 conviction. In 1994, defendant had been sentenced to state prison for a term of 25 years to life after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)) and two strike allegations (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) were found true. Neither of the strike allegations was based on defendants 1978 conviction. Three prison prior enhancement allegations (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) were also found true, including one based on defendants 1978 conviction, but the trial court stayed the punishment for all three prison priors so they did not affect defendants sentence for his 1994 conviction. Defendants July 2009 motion was premised on his claim that his 1978 conviction should not have been used to enhance his 1994 sentence because the 1978 conviction was not for a serious felony. In August 2009, defendant filed an AMENDMENT to his motion, which did not change its substance. The superior court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and he has submitted two supplemental letter briefs. None of his assertions in his supplemental briefs relates to the basis for his 2009 motion. Since defendants 1994 sentence was not impacted in any way by his 1978 conviction (and a prison prior enhancement may be applied for any felony, not just a serious felony), there was nothing illegal about his 1994 sentence. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________

McAdams, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

Description	In July 2009, defendant Isadore Alexander Piper filed a MOTION FOR THE COURT TO REMOVE AN ILLEGAL STRIKE. He asserted in this motion that his 1978 conviction for shooting into an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, 246) had been illegally used to enhance his prison term for his 1994 conviction. In 1994, defendant had been sentenced to state prison for a term of 25 years to life after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)) and two strike allegations (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) were found true. Neither of the strike allegations was based on defendants 1978 conviction. Three prison prior enhancement allegations (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) were also found true, including one based on defendants 1978 conviction, but the trial court stayed the punishment for all three prison priors so they did not affect defendants sentence for his 1994 conviction. Defendants July 2009 motion was premised on his claim that his 1978 conviction should not have been used to enhance his 1994 sentence because the 1978 conviction was not for a serious felony. In August 2009, defendant filed an AMENDMENT to his motion, which did not change its substance. The superior court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and he has submitted two supplemental letter briefs. None of his assertions in his supplemental briefs relates to the basis for his 2009 motion. Since defendants 1994 sentence was not impacted in any way by his 1978 conviction (and a prison prior enhancement may be applied for any felony, not just a serious felony), there was nothing illegal about his 1994 sentence. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.