Filed 11/16/18 P. v. Plascencia CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE PLASCENCIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C086652
(Super. Ct. No. 09F06199)
|
In this appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing under Proposition 36, Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126),[1] appointed counsel for appellant Jose Plascencia filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant, an inmate at New Folsom Prison, physically fought three correctional officers. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of battery by a prisoner on a nonconfined person (§ 4501.5) and two counts of obstructing an officer (§ 69). The trial court sustained three strike allegations (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and sentenced defendant to a 25-year-to-life state prison term. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Plascencia (C068979, Aug. 26, 2013) [nonpub. opn.].)
On December 14, 2017, defendant filed a section 1170.126 resentencing petition. The trial court denied the petition, finding the petition was filed after the two-year limitation on filing section 1170.126 petitions (see § 1170.126, subd. (b)) without a showing from defendant of good cause for the delay. The court also found defendant’s 1999 conviction for murder in Orange County rendered him ineligible for resentencing. As a third reason for denying the petition, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt, based on our opinion affirming defendant’s conviction, that he committed his crimes with the intent to inflict great bodily injury.
II. DISCUSSION
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/S/
MURRAY, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
