1 Filed 11/20/13 P. v. Rice CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. WILLIE TYRO NE RICE, Defendant and Appellant. E058847 (Super.Ct.No. FWV16750)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Sa n Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Defendant and appe llant Willie Tyrone Rice appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of his indeterminate life term under Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (f). 1 We will affirm the order.
I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 5, 1999, a jury found defendant guilty of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court found true the special allegation that defendant had suffe red two prior serious and violent felony convictions (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.1 2, subd. (a)-(d)) for attempted murder (§§ 664/187) and robb ery (§ 211). On May 13, 1999, after denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions, the tr ial court sentenced defe ndant to a total term of 25 years to life in state pr ison under the three strikes law. On November 6, 2012, the electorate pa ssed Proposition 36, also known as the “Three Strikes Reform Act.” Among other th ings, this ballot measure enacted section 1170.126, which permits persons currently se rving an indeterminate life term under the three strikes law to file a petition in the sentencing court to be resentenced to a determinate term as a second striker. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) If the trial court determines, in its discretion, that the defe ndant meets the criteria of section 1170.126, subdivision (e), the court may resentence th e defendant. (§ 1170 .126, subds. (f), (g).)

1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.3 On March 4, 2013, de fendant filed in pro. per. a petition for resentencing under section 1170.126. The trial court denied th e petition on May 2, 2013 , due to defendant’s strike conviction for attempted murder, which made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3). Defend ant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. After examination of the record, 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, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and one potential arguable issue: whether the tria l court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. Section 1170.126, applies ex clusively to those “persons presently serving an indeterminate term of impr isonment pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragra ph (2) of subdivision (c) of Secti on 1170.12, whose sentence under this act would not have been an indeterminate life sentence.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (a).) Section 1170.126 sets forth a procedure through which certain prisoners can petition the court for resentencing. Such a person may file a petition to re call his or her sentence and be sentenced as a second strike offender. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) An inmate is eligible for such resentencing if none of his or her commitment offenses constitute serious or violent felonies and none of enumerated factors disqualifying a defendant for resentencing under Proposition 36 a pply. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).)4 Section 1170.126, subdivisio n (e)(3), provides that an inmate is eligible for resentencing if “[t]he inmate has no prior convictions for any of the offenses appearing in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragrap h (2) of subdivision (e ) of Section 667 or clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12.” Defendant here has a prior conviction for atte mpted murder, an offense listed in sections 667, subdivision (e)(C)(iv)(IV), and 1170.12, subdivision (c )(C)(iv)(IV). Defendant was therefore ineligible for resent encing under section 1170.126. We offered defendant an op portunity 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 fo r potential error and find no arguable issues.
II DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI J.

CODRINGTON J.