Filed 6/28/17 P. v. Greenlee CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER GREENLEE,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068142

(Super.Ct.No. RCR21629)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Greenlee, in pro. per.; Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 6, 2017, defendant and appellant Christopher Greenlee filed an in propria persona petition pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subds. (b) & (g)) to reduce his October 14, 1992, burglary conviction under Penal Code section 459 to a misdemeanor conviction under Penal Code section 459.5. On March 16, 2017, the People filed an opposition to defendant’s petition requesting a hearing on the value of the property taken.
On March 28, 2017, the trial court denied defendant’s petition because his conviction for residential burglary under Penal Code sections 459 and 460 made defendant ineligible under Proposition 47. The court noted: “Denied—defendant pled guilty to 1st degree burglary—not eligible for relief.”
On April 7 and 12, 2017, defendant filed notices of appeal. On April 27, 2017, defense counsel filed an amended notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues; and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. On June 5, 2017, defendant filed a five-page typewritten supplement brief with exhibits. In his brief, defendant essentially challenges his underlying 1992 felony conviction. Defendant claims that the burglary conviction took place at a massage parlor, not a residence, when no one should have been present on the premises since it was 3:00 a.m. Thus, his conviction cannot qualify as first degree burglary. This instant appeal, however, is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion pursuant to Proposition 47, not from the underlying 1992 burglary offense. In his notice of appeal, defendant noted that the appeal was from an “[o]rder after judgment affecting defendant’s substantial rights—Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b): Petition for resentencing pursuant to PC 1170.18 is denied.” Defendant cannot now, 25 years after pleading guilty, challenge his underlying conviction. The time for filing a motion for new trial or vacating a guilty plea has passed.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no other arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
Acting P. J.


We concur:


CODRINGTON
J.


FIELDS
J.