gno.law

People v. Kelly CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · B265838 · 2016-01-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. YA050993
Trial judge
Scott T. Millington
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
Elwood G. Lui (author), Johnson, Frances Rothschild

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 1/20/16 P. v. Kelly CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B265838

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA050993) v.

SANTANA KELLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Scott T. Millington, Judge. Affirmed. Dee A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________ In 2002 Santana Kelly was convicted of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), a felony. In March of 2015, he filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted as part of Proposition 47. The trial court denied that petition, noting that defendant’s commitment offense was ineligible for relief under Proposition 47. Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On November 18, 2015, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 is limited to convictions for the offenses specified therein, in subdivision (a). Defendant’s commitment offense is not within the scope of that section. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, J. We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

JOHNSON, J.

Cites, in this corpus