P. v. Valles
Filed 11/15/13 P. v. Valles 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,
v.
RAFAEL CEJA
VALLES, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
E058816
(Super.Ct.No. FWV900167)
OPINION
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.
Anita
P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On
April 5, 2010, defendant and appellant Rafael Ceja Valles, Jr., pleaded nolo
contendere to one count of attempted
murder under Penal Code
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a); and one
count of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury under
section 245, subdivision (a)(1).
Defendant also admitted an allegation that he caused great bodily injury
in the commission of the attempted murder under section 12022.7, subdivision
(e). In exchange, the parties stipulated
that defendant would receive a sentence of 11 years in state prison, consisting
of seven years for the attempted murder conviction, three years for the great
bodily injury enhancement, and one year for the assault conviction.
On
the same day, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms
of the plea agreement.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
On April 30, 2013, defendant filed a motion for modification of his
sentence “pursuant to Proposition 36 Reform Act of 2012, Penal Code 1170(d),
1181, 1260.†On May 13, 2013, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. The court found that defendant did not
satisfy the criteria for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e),
because he had been convicted of attempted murder with a great bodily injury
enhancement, a violent and serious offense, and he had not been sentenced under
the Three Strikes law.
On May 24, 2013, defendant filed his timely
After
defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of 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 the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he has done so.
On September 16, 2013, defendant filed a two-page
typewritten brief. In his brief, defendant
takes responsibility for the actions that brought him to prison, and expresses
regret. In essence, he asks for mercy to
reduce his sentence. “Mere words can
never fully satisfy what time and actions will eventually solidify and either
refute, or justify. But if my words dare
take new life, I can solemnly promise you that your mercy will not be wasted on
me. I’ve ceased to call it leniency, and
rather choose to embrace the word mercy, while penning these last words.â€
Although
we appreciate defendant taking responsibility for his actions, this appeal is
from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition requesting resentencing
under section 1170.126. At the hearing
on the motion, the court correctly found that defendant was statutorily
ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 because he had been convicted
of a violent and serious offense, and he had not been sentenced under the Three
Strikes law.
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.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting
P. J.
We
concur:
RICHLI
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2] The
original abstract of judgment erroneously indicated an assault with deadly
weapon conviction, instead of an assault by means of force likely to cause
great bodily injury conviction. That
error has been corrected.
