gno.law

In re Raymond S. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · B267738 · 2016-02-02 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. VJ21009
Trial judge
Philip K. Mautino
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
other
Panel
Tricia A. Bigelow (author), Madeleine I. Flier, Laurence D. Rubin

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Filed 2/2/16 In re Raymond S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re RAYMOND S., a Person Coming B267738 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ21009) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND S., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip K. Mautino, Judge. Affirmed.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________ Raymond S. appeals the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. While a juvenile, Raymond was declared a ward of the court for the crime of robbery in 2000. He filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 on May 12, 2015. His appellate attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, on December 4, 2015, requesting we independently review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues. We have done so and are satisfied Raymond’s attorney has fulfilled his duty, and no arguable issues exist. (Ibid.; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Proposition 47 reclassified certain drug and theft offenses, which had previously been felonies or “wobblers,” as misdemeanors. (In re J.L. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1112.) Robbery is a serious and violent felony not subject to recall of sentence under Proposition 47. (§§ 211, 667.5, subd. (c)(9), 1170.18, 1192.7, subd. (c)(19); People v. Lynn (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.) DISPOSITION The challenged order is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J. We concur:

RUBIN, J.

FLIER, J.

Cites, in this corpus