Filed 9/20/17 P. v. Burton CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEREK TYRONE BURTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
| BB281547
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA170135) |
THE COURT*:
Derek Burton (defendant) appeals from the denial of his requests for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18).[1] We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requested this court to independently review the record on appeal to determine whether any arguable issues exist.
We sent a notice to defendant, advising him he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. To date, he has not done so.
Defendant requested resentencing in two superior court cases: No. YA044286 and No. BA170135. Defendant pled guilty in both cases in August 2000.
In case No. YA044286, defendant pled guilty to two counts of robbery. The trial court denied resentencing in this case because robbery is not an offense covered by Proposition 47. (See § 1170.18, subd. (a).)
In case No. BA170135, defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property; the complaint alleged it was a motor vehicle. Although defendant submitted a declaration stating that the value of the vehicle was less than $950, he provided no support for this claim. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the value of the vehicle was more than $950. (See § 1170.18, subd. (a); § 496.)
We have examined the record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney on appeal has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-282; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-124.)
The trial court’s orders are affirmed.
