Filed 8/16/17 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ROBERT GREENLEE,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E068280
(Super.Ct.Nos. RCR18942 & FCH5956)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Christopher Robert Greenlee appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.[1] We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2017, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18), in propria persona.[2]
The People filed an opposition to the petition with the response that “[a] hearing should be held” because there was “[n]o record of conviction in RAP sheet.”
On March 16, 2017, the court held a hearing and denied the petition because defendant’s conviction for first degree burglary with a knife was not eligible for reduction under Proposition 47.[3]
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona.
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 one potential arguable issue: whether defendant was eligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f). 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
