Filed 7/26/17 P. v. Sweeney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

LEO SWEENEY,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067667

(Super.Ct.No. RIF75795)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Leo Sweeney appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition, filed January 8, 2015, for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. As of the uncontested hearing held on December 30, 2016, defendant failed to file an amended petition, as allowed by this court, showing that the property he was convicted of receiving did not exceed $950 in value. (People v. Sweeney (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 295.) We affirm.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE
This case has a long history, much of which is not relevant to this appeal. Briefly, on June 10, 2003, defendant’s third trial ended in a jury verdict convicting him of multiple counts stemming from a gang-related bank robbery, including two counts of receiving stolen property. (§ 496.) Defendant later admitted gang enhancements to those and other counts pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). On January 8, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, in which he claimed he was entitled to have these two felony counts of receiving stolen property reduced to misdemeanors. On July 10, 2015, the trial court found defendant ineligible for relief because his convictions were committed for the benefit of a street gang (§ 186.22), which made them strikes and therefore ineligible. Defendant appealed and this court held that the attachment of gang enhancements to an offense that otherwise fell within the provisions of section 1170.18 did not render defendant statutorily ineligible for a sentencing reduction. (People v. Sweeney, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at pp. 298-302.) We remanded the case to the trial court to allow defendant to file an amended petition and to submit evidence that the value of the property stolen was not worth more than $950. (Id. at p. 303.) Defendant failed to file an amended petition, and so the trial court denied the initial, unamended petition without prejudice at an uncontested hearing held on December 30, 2016.
Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. 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 conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
J.

CODRINGTON
J.