People v. Washington CA2/6

Filed 8/18/23 P. v. Washington CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B327192
(Super. Ct. No. CR31586)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
RODERICK N.
WASHINGTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Roderick N. Washington appeals from the trial court’s
denial of his motion to vacate a conviction allegedly obtained due
to racial bias. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 745, 1473.7, subd. (a)(3).)
In 1993, Washington pleaded no contest to grand theft of a
vehicle (§ 487, former subd. (3)), and admitted that he had
previously been convicted of that offense (§ 666.5, subd. (a)) and
served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)). The trial
court sentenced him to four years in state prison.
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 2022, Washington moved to vacate his conviction
pursuant to sections 745 and 1473.7,2 alleging it was obtained
due to racial bias in the proceedings. The trial court denied the
motion, finding that the provisions of section 745 did not apply to
Washington.
We appointed counsel to represent Washington in this
appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening
brief that raises no arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.) Washington then filed a
supplemental brief. (See id. at p. 232.) In it, he contends the
trial court should have granted his motion and allowed him to
discover documents that would purportedly support his claim of
racial bias. But as that court explained, the provisions of section
745 do not yet apply to Washington. (See § 745, subd. (j)(5)
[section does not apply to cases like Washington’s until January
1, 2026].3) And our independent review of the record reveals that
no other arguable issue exists. (Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
2 Washington erroneously refers to section 1473.7 as section
1473.1 in his motion.
3 From the return address on his supplemental brief, it
appears that Washington is now incarcerated in the Los Angeles
County Jail. If he remains incarcerated on January 1, 2024, he
may raise the contentions in his motion to vacate his conviction
pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(3), in a petition for
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to section 1473, subdivision
(f). (See § 745, subd. (j)(3).)
2
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying Washington’s motion to
vacate his conviction, entered January 9, 2023, is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
3
Gilbert A. Romero, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.