Filed 1/4/18 P. v. Beasley CA5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY BEASLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.


F075640

(Super. Ct. No. F10900213)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Edward Sarkisian, Jr., Judge.
Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Beasley asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On November 3, 2011, defendant was convicted by jury trial of the attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211; counts 3 & 4) of two victims. As to count 3, the jury found true allegations that defendant intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). In addition, the jury found true allegations that defendant had served two prior prison terms.
On January 12, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years on count 3, plus a 20-year consecutive term for discharging a firearm, a 10-year stayed term for personal use of a firearm, and eight consecutive months on count 4. The court imposed two one-year consecutive terms for the prior prison terms, plus various fines and fees.
On April 12, 2017, defendant filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to reduce his two attempted robbery convictions to misdemeanors. He argued his convictions should be section 459.5 convictions because they took place in a commercial establishment open during normal business hours and the value of the property taken or attempted to be taken did not exceed $950.
On May 2, 2017, the trial court denied the petition, finding that the convictions did not qualify under section 1170.18.
On May 15, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
After reviewing the entire record, we find no arguable issues. The trial court properly denied the petition for relief under Proposition 47. Section 211 is not listed in section 1170.18 and thus defendant was not eligible for resentencing on those offenses.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.