Filed 12/15/17 P. v. Burnett CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW DOUGLAS BURNETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074949

(Super. Ct. Nos. LBF8773, LBF8869)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge.
Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-



Appointed counsel for defendant Andrew Douglas Burnett asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 7, 1999, defendant was stopped and cited for speeding. He claimed the Nevada address on his Nevada driver’s license was correct.
On April 25, 1999, defendant was stopped and cited for speeding.
On July 18, 1999, defendant was stopped for speeding at 95 miles per hour on the freeway and for driving with a suspended license. Immediately thereafter, he was again stopped and arrested for speeding at 90 miles per hour. Defendant said he had been overseas on active duty in the Navy (he produced documents to so prove) and, thus, he could not have been the person stopped on March 7, 1999. Later, however, the officer who had stopped him on March 7, 1999, identified him as the same man. In addition, defendant’s address was found not to exist.
On July 23, 1999, defendant applied for renewal of his driver’s license. He intentionally omitted certain information and included other false information.
On September 3, 1999, the commissioner’s review of papers submitted for a trial by declaration on the March 7, 1999, citation suggested that defendant had submitted false Navy documents to the court. On September 17, 1999, the Navy responded with information that defendant had been discharged in 1997.
On September 22, 1999, defendant was arrested.
On December 21, 2001, defendant pled no contest to offering false evidence (Pen. Code, § 132) in two different cases (case Nos. LBF8773 and LBF8869). In case No. LBF8773, the trial court sentenced him to eight months, to be served consecutively to his current term. In case No. LBF8869, the court sentenced him to one year four months, to be served concurrently to his other terms.
On August 4, 2003, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Burnett (Aug. 4, 2003, F041464) [nonpub. opn.].)
On March 4, 2015, defendant filed a petition to reduce the two section 132 convictions in case Nos. LBF8773 and LBF8869 to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18).
On April 20, 2015, the trial court denied the petition.
On April 28, 2016, defendant attempted to file a notice of appeal. On June 15, 2016, defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate to order the trial court clerk to accept and file his notice of appeal.
On November 18, 2016, the trial court denied defendant’s petition for writ of mandate on the grounds that the notice of appeal was untimely and his section 132 offenses were not eligible for reduction under Proposition 47.
On December 19, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition for writ of mandate.
After reviewing the entire record, we find no arguable issues. The trial court properly denied the petition for relief under Proposition 47. Section 132 is not listed in section 1170.18 and thus defendant was not eligible for resentencing on those offenses. Accordingly, even if defendant’s notice of appeal had been timely filed, the appeal would have failed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.