Filed 10/1/26 P. v. White CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B346678
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA151765)
v.
BOBBY D. WHITE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Teresa Magno, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________
Defendant and appellant Bobby D. White appeals from a
writ of habeas corpus. We find the order nonappealable and
dismiss the appeal.
The People alleged defendant got into a physical altercation
with his pregnant neighbor, and then shot her, after she
complained about the loud music coming from his apartment.
Defendant was charged with two counts of first degree attempted
murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; counts 1 & 2), shooting
at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 3), unlawful possession of a
firearm/ammunition (§§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(1);
counts 4 & 5), and battery (§ 242; count 6). Personal firearm use
and great bodily injury allegations were also alleged
(§§ 12022.53, 12022.7).
On April 8, 2022, defendant, with the assistance of counsel,
agreed to plead no contest to two counts of second degree
attempted murder, and admitted using a firearm causing great
bodily injury in the commission of both offenses in exchange for a
stipulated sentence of 20 years in prison. Before entering the
plea, the prosecutor stated on the record that defense counsel had
negotiated for additional reductions in the initially proposed
offer, down to a total term of 20 years. Defense counsel noted on
the record that defendant had been “adamant about reviewing all
the changes in the law, to make sure that every new law that
came into effect this year could possibly be used for his benefit.”
Defense counsel emphasized that “no strike enhancements are
being used” and the gun use and great bodily injury
enhancements that were agreed to did not result in a term over
20 years in length.
On May 27, 2022, the court imposed the agreed-upon
20 year sentence, calculated as follows: seven-year middle term
on count 1, plus a consecutive 10-year term for the firearm use
allegation, and a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily
injury allegation. All remaining counts and allegations were
dismissed. The court awarded defendant 885 total days of
presentence custody credits.
2
Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
trial court on January 6, 2025, alleging he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Defendant contended his appointed
counsel during his plea failed to make appropriate arguments
regarding his sentence in light of the passage of Senate Bill
No. 81 and Assembly Bill No. 518, which amended judicial
discretion with respect to the imposition of enhancements.
On April 24, 2025, the trial court denied defendant’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus in chambers. The court
explained that defendant had been charged with two counts of
first degree attempted murder, along with other counts, and was
facing the potential for multiple life sentences. Defendant agreed
to enter a plea of no contest with a stipulated sentence of
20 years. The trial court found no basis for error in the
negotiated disposition to which defendant agreed.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s order.
On February 26, 2026, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief
under People v. Delgadillo, (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),
identifying no issues on appeal. On July 13, 2026, defendant
filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court’s sentence
violated Penal Code section 654 because he claims Assembly Bill
No. 518 amended the code after he was sentenced.
The denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
superior court is not an appealable order. (In re Clark (1993)
5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7; People v. Gallardo (2000)
77 Cal.App.4th 971, 983). Defendant’s remedy was to file a new
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appellate court.
(Gallardo, at p. 983.)
In unusual circumstances and in the interest of judicial
economy, some appellate courts have treated an improperly filed
3
notice of appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and
resolved the merits. (See, e.g., People v. Garrett (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1423.)
We find no unusual circumstances warranting such review
here where defendant relies on changes to Penal Code
section 654, as enacted by Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021–2022 Reg.
Sess.), which became effective on January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021,
ch. 441, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2022; Pen. Code, § 654.) Sentence was
imposed in May 2022, several months after the changes to the
sentencing laws on which defendant relies, became effective.
Thus, defendant’s argument that Assembly Bill No. 518 amended
Penal Code section 654 after he was sentenced finds no support
in the record. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates defense
counsel or the judge were unaware of these new laws or failed to
apply them. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume the
trial court followed the applicable law. (People v. Mosley (1997)
53 Cal.App.4th 489, 496.)
Finally, we decline to exercise our discretion to
independently review the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 226.)
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
SCHERB, J.
5