Filed 4/19/18 P. v. Daniels CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TED DARNELL DANIELS,

Defendant and Appellant.
D072758



(Super. Ct. No. SCD149951)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2001, a jury convicted Ted Darnell Daniels of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Daniels was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus five years for a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
In 2016 Daniels filed a petition under Proposition 47 (Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act; § 1170.18) to reduce his convictions to misdemeanors because section 245, subdivision (a)(1) was a "wobbler" offense. The petition was denied. Daniels filed another petition in 2017, which petition was again denied because section 245, subdivision (a)(1) was not one of the enumerated offenses in section 1170.18. Daniels filed a timely notice of appeal from the 2017 denial of his second petition.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Daniels the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Daniels requested an extension of time to file a supplemental brief, however, has never filed a brief or made any further requests for extensions of time. Hence, we will proceed to review the case without any brief from Daniels.
We will omit the traditional statement of facts regarding the underlying 1999 offenses since they have no bearing on the issues that might be raised in this appeal from the 2017 order.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In order to assist this court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 387 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue for our consideration:
Whether Daniels's convictions are eligible for reclassification under section 1170.18?
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 387 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Daniels on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.


HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:



McCONNELL, P. J.



IRION, J.