Filed 4/ 7/16 P. v. Lertjanthuk CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 spec ified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

UDON LERTJANTHUK,

Defendant and Appellant. B266515

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. GA053703 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Jared D. Moses , Judge. Affirmed.

Leonard J. Klaif , under app ointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

_______________________________________2 INTRODUCTION

D efendant Udon Lertjanthuk appeals from the denial of his petition for recall and

resentencing under Proposit ion 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. We

affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

By amended information filed on November 18, 2003 , defendant was charged

with two counts of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Safety Code, § 11379,

subd. (a) ; counts 1 and 2) 1 , one count of sale, transportation or offer to sell a controlled

substance (§ 11352, subd. (a); count 3), and one count of possession of a controlled

substance (§ 11377, subd. (a); count 4). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant

pled no contest to counts 2 and 3. The court suspended imposition of sentences on both

counts and placed defendant on formal probation for three years. The court required

defendant to serve 60 days in county jail. The court dismissed the remaining counts.

On J uly 10, 2015, defendant in propria persona filed a petition to recall his

felony sentence on count 2 and resentence him as a misdemeanant under Proposition 47.

The court held a hearing on August 11, 2015, and found as a matter of law that neither

of defen dant’s convictions is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 . Defendant

timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

On December 24, 2015, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in which he

raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently. ( Pe ople v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On the court’s next business day , we notified defendant that his

counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days to submit by brief

or letter any arguments he wished this court to consider . We h ave not received

a response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellate counsel has fully

complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us

.

1 All further undesignated code s ection are to the Health & Safety Code.3

( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278

– 284; People v . Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at

p. 443.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying the request for resentencing is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

HOGUE, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.