Filed 6/23/17 P. v. Devereaux CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBYN DEVEREAUX,
Defendant and Appellant.

A149845

(San Francisco County
Super. Ct. No. 217387)


Appellant Robyn Devereaux appeals from an order denying her motion to recall her sentence. Her appellate attorney has asked this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and Devereaux has filed a supplemental letter brief.
Devereaux pleaded guilty in January 2012 under a negotiated disposition to one count of attempted extortion (Pen. Code, § 524), and she was placed on probation for three years. She was later found to be in violation of her probation and was sentenced to three years, to be served in the county jail. She filed a notice of appeal, but the appeal was later abandoned. (No. A148316.)
This appeal arises from Devereaux’s attempt to have her sentence reduced under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). She first filed a petition for recall in May 2016 while represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition, and no appeal was taken. Around three months after the denial, and proceeding without an attorney, Devereaux filed another motion seeking to be resentenced. She argued that the judge had “imposed an unauthorized sentence by levying a draconian penalty by enforcing a null and void order under the ‘collateral bar’ rule, which was abolished by the California courts as long ago as 1872!” She also claimed that the trial court had exceeded its power, violated her constitutional rights, and tried to blackmail her when the court ordered that she delete certain websites directed at her victim. Devereaux further contended that a three-year sentence in the county jail amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because the facility lacked adequate resources for long-term inmates and also lacked adequate space for outdoor exercise.
At the hearing on Devereaux’s motion, she was represented by the appellate attorney handling her then-pending appeal (No. A148316). The trial court denied the motion, stating that it no longer had authority to resentence Devereaux because the time to do so under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) had passed, and that the sentence was lawful in any event. As for the allegations regarding Devereaux’s confinement, the court stated that “I have absolute confidence that the Sheriff’s Department and the medical professionals within that department exercise both reasonable custodial decisions and medical decisions to ensure that all of our inmates are housed appropriately and given the medical treatment they require.”
Devereaux appealed from the trial court’s denial of her second motion for resentencing. After her attorney filed a Wende brief, Devereaux separately filed a supplemental letter brief. In her brief, Devereaux mainly argues why, in her view, her original sentence was unlawful.
We have reviewed the record relevant to the narrow issues that may be reviewed in connection with the order appealed from, as well as Devereaux’s supplemental letter brief, and have found no arguable issues. The order denying Devereaux’s motion to recall her sentence is affirmed.




_________________________
Humes, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Margulies, J.


_________________________
Banke, J.