People v. Joseph CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Joseph CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B349313

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. YA093603)

JORDAN JOSEPH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jordan Joseph (defendant) of second degree murder in 2016. Defendant committed the murder in 2015, when he was 17 years old. On direct appeal in 2018, this Court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to reassess whether defendant was fit for juvenile proceedings and, if not, to decide whether to exercise newly conferred discretion to strike a 25-to- life firearm enhancement that was a component of defendant’s 40 years to life prison sentence. (People v. Joseph (May 30, 2018, B278013) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court determined defendant was not fit for adjudication in juvenile court and, after a hearing, declined to strike the firearm enhancement. (People v. Joseph (Jan. 31, 2022, B309455) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike the firearm enhancement and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. (Ibid.) This Court held the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement. (Ibid.) This Court further held defendant forfeited the constitutional challenge to his sentence and, in any case, there was no constitutional violation. (Ibid.) In 2024, defendant, representing himself, filed a Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) petition relying on People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, which holds juvenile offenders who are serving de facto life without parole sentences (not just actual life without parole sentences) may obtain section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) relief provided they meet the other statutory criteria—including incarceration for at least 15 years (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(1)(A)). The prosecution filed an opposition arguing defendant was statutorily ineligible for relief because he 2 has not been incarcerated for at least 15 years and because his 40 years to life sentence is not the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole anyway. The trial court denied defendant’s petition. Defendant noticed an appeal, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, defendant’s attorney filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that raises no issues but asks us to independently review the record. This Court thereafter invited defendant to submit a supplemental brief and he has done so. We confine our opinion, and our review of the record, to that brief. (Id. at 232.) Defendant’s supplemental brief does not dispute he was ineligible for “resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) and (d)(2), including arguments related to Heard . . . .” Instead, the brief explains he wishes to raise “other issues,” specifically, the correctness of the earlier court finding that he was not fit for juvenile proceedings. These issues, however, are unrelated to the appealed order denying defendant’s petition for recall and resentencing, and they are not properly before us. (See, e.g., Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 170 [“‘Our jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from’”].)

3 DISPOSITION The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D.), J.