Filed 2/26/16 P. v. Villareal CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RUFUS VI LLAREAL,
Defendant and Appellant. B 265182 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA103488)

A PPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Wade D. Olson, Judge. Affirmed. Brad Kaiserman, under appointment by the Co urt of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.2

In the und erlying action, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Rufus
Villareal plead ed nolo contendere to charges of receiving a stolen motor vehicle and possession of a control led substance . Later, he filed a petition or resentencing
under Penal Code section 1 170.1 8
, a provision enacted pursuant to Proposition 47
that permits defendants convicted of certain felonies to be resentenc ed as if
convicted of a misdemeanor

. The trial court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, concluding that only appellant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance was eligible for resentencing. After an appeal was noticed from that ruling, a ppellant’s court

- appointed counse l filed an opening brief raising no issues

. Fo llowing our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), we conclude that no arguable issues exist
, and affirm the ruling on the petition for resentenc ing

.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2013, a n information was filed, charging appellant in
count one with receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d), and in count two with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Accompanying the charges were allegations that appellant had suffered four prior convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. ( b )). 1 On the same date, p ursuant to a plea argument, a ppellant pleaded no lo contendere to the charg es and admitted the special allegations. The trial court placed appellant on probation for three years
, subject to a suspended sentence of seven years and eight months in prison, comprising terms of three years on count one, eight months on count two , and four years for the prior convictions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code , unless otherwise indicated

.3

In November 2014, the electorate approved Proposition 47, which makes
certain drug

- related and theft

- related offenses misdemeanors. ( People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) Proposition 47 also added section 1170.18, which creates a post

- conviction resentencing procedure for persons convicted of felony offenses now classified as misdemeanors. ( Rivera , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1092

- 1093.) Subdivisions (a) and (b) of that statute authorize resente ncing
for th ose reclassified offenses, which include possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and specified theft

- related offenses, provided the value of the property in question was less than $950 ( People v. Nichols (Feb. 3,
2016 , H041979) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___ [2016 Cal.App. LEXIS 80, *5] ( Nichols ))

. Under subdivision (a) of section 1170.18, a person “ ‘ currently serving ’ ” a felony sentence for a reclassified offense who satisfies certain eligibility criteria may seek resenten cing. ( Rivera , supra , at p. 1092.)
In April 20 15
, at a probation revocation hearing, appellant admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation. After revok ing probation
, at the unopposed request of defense counsel, the trial court set as ide appellant’s suspended sentence, and imposed a n aggregate sentence of four years, comprising three years on count one and an additional year for one of the prior convictions. The court also imposed a concurrent two

- year term on count two, and struck th e remaining three prior conviction allegations

. In May 2015, appellant submitted a petition for recall of his sentence and for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18. O n June 3, 2015 , the trial court granted the petition in part and denied it in part , concluding that only a ppellant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance was eligible for resentencing

. In resentencing appellant, the court imposed a concurrent term of 364 days on that
conviction. T his appeal followed.4 D ISCUSSION
After an examination of the record, appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues
, and requested this court to review the record independently pursuant to Wende

. In addition, counsel advised appellant of his right to submit by su pplement al brief any contentions or argument he wished the
court to consider. Appellant has neither presented a brief nor i dentified any potential issues.
O ur independent review of the record discloses no error in the trial court’s
determination that appellant ’s conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle is
in eligible for resentencing under section 1170.1 8

. A lthough the reclassified
offenses enumerated in that statute expressly encompass receiving stolen property ( § 496), they do not include the offense of receiving a stolen motor vehicle, as set
forth in section 496d. ( Nichols
, supra , ___ Cal.App.4th at pp. ___ [2016 Cal.App. LEXIS 80, at *5

- *14] .) Accordingly, as explained in Nichols , the latter offense is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18. ( Nichols
, supra , ___ Cal.App.4th at pp.

___ [2016 Cal.App. LEXIS 80, at *5

- *14].) In sum, because the record demonstrates that appellant’s petition for resentencing was properly denied insofar as it targeted appellant’s conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle , we conclude that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)5 DISPOSITION
T he order of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

COLLINS, J.