Filed 5/7/25 P. v. Garcia CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B337226 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA074827) v. ARTHUR GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Defendant and appellant Arthur Garcia (defendant) appeals the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

After his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. We have reviewed the record and have considered the issues raised in defendant’s brief. We conclude the trial court’s order was not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND On May 15, 2008, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(l),1 as charged in the amended information. The trial court therefore found true the prior conviction for first degree burglary alleged under section 1170.12, subdivisions (a)– (d) and section 667 subdivisions (b)–(i), as well as the five-year recidivist enhancement of section 667, subdivision (a). The court denied defendant’s Romero motion to strike the first degree burglary conviction for purpose of sentencing2 and sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life in prison, doubled as a second strike, plus a consecutive five years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), for a total of 55 years to life. Defendant was awarded presentence custody credits of 876 actual days and 31 days conduct credits calculated at 15 percent pursuant to section 2933.1. The judgment was affirmed in People v. Garcia (Apr. 28, 2011, B210960) (nonpub.opn.).

Defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 16, 2024, which was summarily denied on February 23, 2024, in a written decision. Counsel was not appointed nor was a hearing held. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order of denial.

DISCUSSION The petition alleged defendant was entitled to have the five-year enhancement imposed pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1) stricken and to be resentenced. As authority, defendant’s petition cites Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 483).3 It is defendant’s position the law eliminated prior convictions under Health and Safety Code section 11351 for enhancement purposes and eliminated burglary as a violent offense. Senate Bill No. 483 did neither.

With exceptions, section 1172.7, subdivision (a) invalidates sentence enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2018, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. There is no mention in Penal Code section 1172.7 of Health and Safety Code section 11351. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 all enhancements imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior to January 1, 2020, unless imposed on prior convictions for sexually violent offenses, are legally invalid. There is no mention of the five-year recidivist enhancement of section 667, subdivision (a). Thus, neither section 1172.75 nor section 1172.7 apply here.

The trial court acknowledged Assembly Bill 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) gave the court discretion to resentence defendant pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1), but the court chose not to exercise that discretion. The court’s decision is not

appealable. (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 991, 996–999.) Nor is the order denying the petition. “‘[I]n noncapital cases, if the superior court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has no statutory right to appeal. Instead, the petitioner must file a new, original petition, generally in the Court of Appeal.’” (In re Dohner (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 590, 594.)

“We have discretion, however, to deem an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus to be an original habeas petition filed in this court [when] the interest of judicial economy weighs in favor of deciding the merits . . . .” (Ibid., citations omitted.) Under the circumstances of this case as discussed above, we see nothing that might favor deciding the merits of defendant’s petition for habeas corpus. We thus dismiss the appeal.4 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.