1

Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Salvo CA 4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM SANTO SALVO,

Defendant and Appellant. E062474

(Super.Ct.No. FSB1403233)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,

Judge. Order affirmed.

Patricia Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defen dant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant, William Salvo, pled guilty to possessing a

firearm by an ex

- felon. (Pen

. Code , § 29800 , subd. (a)(1)

. ) He was sentenced to prison

for the agreed

- to te rm of two years. Thereafter, he petitioned for resentencing under the2

provisions of Proposition 47 ( § 1170.18). The trial court denied his petition, concluding

he was ineligible for resentencing. He appeals from that order.

Upon defendant’s request, t his court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493], setting

forth a statement of the c ase, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and

requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We discuss those

issues later in this opinion and conclude that none are meritorious.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we

have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find n o arguable issue s

.

In her brief before this court, c ounsel for defendant listed as a potential arguable

issue whether defendant satisfies the criteria for eligibility for Proposition 47 relief.

Proposition 47, embodied, in part, in section 1170.18, provides, as is pertinent

here, “(a) A person currently ser ving a sentence for a conviction

. . . of a felony

. . . who

would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the act

. . . had this act been in effect at

the time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence

. . . to request resentencing in

accordanc e with Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of the Health and Safety Code, or

Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code, as those sections have

been amended or added by this act.” None of those sections apply to the crime of3

possessing a f

irearm by an ex

- felon , therefore, defendant is not eligible for resentencing

as a misdemeanant under section 1170.18.

Given the foregoing, the facts surrounding defendant’s current crime are irrelevant

to the determination that he is ineligible for a reca ll of sentence under section 170.18.

D ISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

KING

J.