Filed 8/31/17 P. v. Ohlert 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
LANCE LEE OHLERT,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E067922
(Super.Ct.No. INF028545)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant appeals from the court’s order denying his petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). We affirm.
Statement of the Case
On December 19, 1997, the People filed a felony complaint alleging that on December 17, 1997, defendant received stolen property (Pen. Code, former § 496), a 1990 Pontiac, dealer license number 31056A.
On January 5, 1998, defendant pled guilty to the single count of receiving stolen property. The court sentenced defendant to 30 days’ time served and placed him on probation for 36 months.
On April 9, 1998, defendant admitted to violating his probation and the court sentenced him to two years in prison, to run concurrent with the sentence in another case.
On November 8, 2016, the public defender filed a Superior Court of Riverside County Forms, form RI-CR039, petition for resentencing—application for reduction to misdemeanor, pursuant to section 1170.18 on defendant’s behalf. On the form, the box was checked stating: “Defendant believes the value of the check or property does not exceed $950.”
The People responded that defendant is not eligible because, “nknown property & value. [Defendant] failed to provide any evidence that it was worth less than $950.”
The court set a resentencing conference for January 20, 2017, and noted on the form: “Need value of the stolen prop. (may be car.) [Public defender appointed.]”
Defendant was not transported from custody for the conference, but was represented by counsel. The court denied the petition without prejudice.
Defendant appealed. As part of the notice of appeal, defendant included a note to the court asking for a continuance while he pursued a “Freedom of Information Act” request regarding the value of the property.
Discussion
Upon defendant’s 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 facts, a statement of the case, and not identifying any potentially arguable issues. 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.
Disposition
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
[u]RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
