P. v.Bradford

Filed 6/16/06 P. v.Bradford CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

The defendant, Raymond A. Bradford, appeals from an order sentencing him to a term of 14 years in state prison. We dismiss the appeal, finding that it either has not been taken from an appealable judgment or is an untimely appeal from a judgment long final.

Background

In 1997, defendant Raymond A. Bradford, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, was convicted of 11 counts of battery by an inmate on a noninmate (Pen. Code, § 4501.5[1]) and one count of resisting an executive officer (§ 69).[2] The court, finding that some of defendant's convictions were subject to the sentencing limitation of section 654,[3] imposed an aggregate sentence of 20 years in state prison. Defendant at that time argued, unsuccessfully, that all of the charges relating to his conduct on July 25, 1996, were subject to the sentencing limitations of section 654.[4] Defendant appealed from the judgment, but did not at that time contend that the trial court had erred or abused its discretion in rejecting his section 654 arguments. This court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence in an unpublished decision. (People v. Bradford, supra, A080074.)

Defendant then filed a petition of writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. His petition was denied on September 30, 2002. (Bradford v. Ayers (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2002, No. CV-99-03613).) The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the trial court had erred by admitting evidence in the form of videotapes of defendant in a prison environment. The Ninth Circuit found the error was prejudicial as to four counts (counts 6, 11, 12 and 13), where the case against defendant was less than overwhelming, but was harmless with respect to the remaining counts because the evidence against defendant on those counts was definitive. (Bradford v. Ayers (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2005, No. 03-15474) 121 Fed.Appx. 707, U.S. App. LEXIS 1913.) The Ninth Circuit accordingly ordered the district court to issue the writ of habeas corpus as to the four specified counts, â€