People v. Solomon CA2/5 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •  Filed 12/14/20 P. v. Solomon 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   B305971
    Plaintiff and                                            (Los Angeles County
    Respondent,                                                   Super. Ct. No. MA003548)
    v.
    MONETTE SHASHONEE
    SOLOMON,
    Defendant and
    Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, David Hizami, Judge. Affirmed.
    Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    __________________________
    Defendant and appellant Monette Shashonee Solomon
    appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for a
    determination of factual innocence and request to seal and
    destroy arrest records, pursuant Penal Code section 851.8.1
    On April 2, 1992, Solomon was charged with offenses
    allegedly committed in 1991, including: forcible rape of P.A.
    (§ 261, subd. (a)(2) [count 1]), anal or genital penetration by
    foreign object of P.A. (§ 289 [count 2]), attempted kidnapping
    for sexual purposes of R.M. (§§ 208, subd. (d), 664 [count 3]),
    and assault with intent to commit rape of R.M. (§ 220 [count
    4]). The information alleged that Solomon inflicted great
    bodily injury on the victim in counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.8), and
    that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of counts 3
    and 4 (§ 12022.3, subd. (a)). The information further alleged
    that Solomon suffered a prior serious felony conviction
    within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), and
    served a prior prison term for a felony within the meaning of
    section 667.5, subdivision (b), as to all four counts. On July
    13, 1992, the trial court dismissed the case pursuant to
    section 1385.
    On December 26, 2019, Solomon petitioned under
    section 851.8 for a determination of factual innocence with
    respect to the alleged offenses set forth in the April 2, 1991
    information, and requested that the related arrest records be
    1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
    unless otherwise indicated.
    2
    sealed and destroyed.2 The trial court summarily denied the
    petition in an order dated March 9, 2020.
    Solomon appealed the trial court’s order on April 10,
    2020. We appointed counsel on appeal. On September 15,
    2020, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
    (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende), raising no issues but asking
    this court to independently review the record for error.
    We advised Solomon on September 16, 2020, of his
    right to file a brief or letter containing any issues he wished
    this court to consider. Solomon filed a supplemental brief on
    September 17, 2020. In his brief, Solomon conceded that
    there is a two-year deadline for filing for relief under section
    851.8. Section 851.8, subdivision (l) provides: “For arrests
    occurring on or after January 1, 1981, and for accusatory
    pleadings filed on or after January 1, 1981, petitions for
    relief under this section may be filed up to two years from
    the date of the arrest or filing of the accusatory pleading,
    whichever is later.” Solomon argued, however, that relief
    should be granted because he is a layperson with no
    knowledge of the law and had not petitioned under section
    851.8 until he learned that he would be eligible for family
    visitation while incarcerated if a petition establishing his
    factual innocence pursuant to that section was granted.
    2 Solomon noted in his petition that he is currently
    serving an indeterminate life-sentence in state prison, with
    the possibility of parole, for a conviction in an unrelated
    crime.
    3
    We have examined the entire record and find no
    arguable issues on appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    The trial court’s order is affirmed.
    MOOR, J.
    We concur:
    RUBIN, P. J.
    KIM, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B305971

Filed Date: 12/14/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2020