Filed 12/14/17 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JOSEPH EDWARD THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068479

(Super.Ct.No. BAF1501125)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed.
William Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Joseph Edward Thompson pled guilty to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and admitted two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a)). In accordance with the plea agreement, a trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months, doubled pursuant to the strikes, for a total state prison term of 32 months. The court awarded a total of 188 days of credit for time served.
Defendant subsequently filed a petition to recall or dismiss his sentence, pursuant to section 11361.8. The prosecution argued that defendant was ineligible for relief because he was over 21 years old and he used his codefendant brother, who was 19 years old at the time, in committing his offense. (§ 11359, subd. (d).) The prosecution also argued that defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 11361.8, subd. (b).) The court found that defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, noting defendant’s two prior strike offenses of robbery and burglary, as well as his resistance toward correctional officers, his participation in a prison riot, and his possession of drugs and weapons while incarcerated. Thus, the court denied his petition.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, possession of marijuana for sales. (§ 11359.)
DISCUSSION
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 and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
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 arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
J.

SLOUGH
J.