In re Shaheed

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: A164929
• Parties: In re KARRIEM SHAHEED on Habeas Corpus.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

In re KARRIEM SHAHEED on Habeas Corpus.

A164929

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

December 29, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HC127824-2)

STEWART, P.J.

Petitioner Karriem Shaheed purports to appeal from a superior court order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus and, in connection therewith, amending the abstract of judgment. It is well established that "in 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." (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895; Pen. Code,^[1] § 1506 [providing People, but not habeas petitioner, right to appeal].)

Where "the interest of judicial economy weighs in favor of deciding the merits now, and there is no need to further develop the record," we may exercise our discretion "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."

1

(In re Dohner (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 590, 594; People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 986.) We exercise that discretion in this case because petitioner has provided an adequate record and disposition of this petition on its merits will serve judicial economy.

We deny the petition for the reasons stated below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I.

Trial and Sentencing

As set forth in our opinion on Shaheed's direct appeal from the underlying judgment, Shaheed "was charged by information filed on July 24, 1996, with one count of rape (Pen. Code, §261, subd. (a)(2)), two counts of oral copulation (§ 288a), and one count of possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (§ 12021.1). The first three counts alleged that [Shaheed] personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.3, subd. (a)), was ineligible for probation (§ 1203.065, subd. (a)), and was subject to sentencing under sections 667.61, subdivision (e)(4) and 667.6, subdivision (d)). The information additionally alleged that [Shaheed] had suffered a prior felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (e)(1)/1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and served a separate prison term for that conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a).)" (People v. Shaheed (Sept. 16, 1999, A078455 [nonpub. opn.], fn. omitted.) "Jury trial began on April 1, 1997. On April 4, the jury found appellant guilty of all charges and found the firearm use and prior conviction allegations true." (Ibid.)

The trial court sentenced Shaheed to a total term of 35 years to life, consisting of: concurrent 15-years-to-life terms on each of the three sex offenses, each doubled to 30 years to life under the Three Strikes Law, section 667, subdivision (e)(1); one two-year term on the firearm count, also doubled and concurrent; and one consecutive five-year term for the prior

2

conviction. It appears the court intended the firearm enhancements to be included in the 15-years-to-life terms for each of the three sex offenses. The 1997 abstract of judgment confirmed a total term of 35 years to life, with concurrent terms on counts 1 through 4 and the gun enhancements stayed. It also indicated that Shaheed was being sentenced under the Three Strikes Law.

II.

Subsequent Amendments to the Abstract of Judgment

In April 2002, in response to a notice from the Department of Corrections, the abstract of judgment was amended to reflect that the gun enhancements on counts 1 through 3, as well as the sentence on the count 4 gun possession charge, were stayed. The amended abstract also struck the prior strike conviction, under section 1385, as to counts 2, 3 and 4...