Filed 4/25/17 P. v. Zurita 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ROBERT NAVARRO ZURITA,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067692

(Super.Ct.No. CR68296)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Robert Navarro Zurita, filed a petition for reclassification of his first degree burglary conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, which the court denied. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, 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 identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether defendant was eligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18. We affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 22, 1996, defendant pled guilty to first degree burglary. (§ 459; count 1.) The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years’ incarceration.
On November 17, 2016, defendant filed a petition for reclassification of his offense pursuant to section 1170.18. Within the petition, defendant admitted he was currently serving a three strikes life sentence in another case. The People’s response dated December 13, 2016, asserted defendant was ineligible for reclassification of his offense because first degree burglary is a nonqualifying felony. Moreover, the People also asserted defendant has since been convicted of a rape by force or fear (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), a so-called “super strike,” and was now required to register as a section 290 sex registrant. On December 28, 2016, the court denied defendant’s petition without a hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
J.


We concur:

HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.

MILLER
J.