P. v. Rollen












Filed 3/24/17 P. v. Rollen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

VAN KEYSHONE ROLLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

D071712



(Super. Ct. No. INF1201849)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside, Becky L. Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2013, a jury convicted Van Keyshone Rollen of one count of attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code,[1] § 136.1, subd. (b)(1); one count of misdemeanor battery (§ 242) and one count of misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
In 2016, Rollen filed a petition in the trial court seeking to have his felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18; the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act). The trial court found that the offense in section 136.1 is not one of the offenses listed in section 1170.18. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. Rollen filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Rollen the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the present appeal. Therefore, we will not summarize the facts of those offenses.
DISCUSSION
In his supplemental brief, Rollen complains about several matters, which are not included in the record on appeal. He contends the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence at his trial. Rollen does not discuss what material was allegedly withheld, nor is there anything in the current record regarding the 2013 trial. In addition, he challenges the reliability of one of the trial witnesses, again without any record to support his contention. Rollen's supplemental brief does not discuss any matter relating to the current appeal from the order denying his Proposition 47 petition. Thus, Rollen has not offered any information to this court that would suggest there might be an arguable issue for reversal of the current order on appeal.
Appellate counsel, in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), has offered one possible, but not reasonably arguable issue for our consideration:
Whether the trial court correctly determined that convictions for violation of section 136.1 are not eligible for reclassification under section 1170.18.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Rollen on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition filed under section 1170.18 is affirmed.



HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:




BENKE, Acting P. J.




HALLER, J.


Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.