Filed 2/4/16 P. v. Taylor CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FARMONTAE TA YLOR,

Defendant and Appellant. B26 5211

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA244373 )

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

Craig Veals, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of David R. Greifinger, Davi d R. Greifinger, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant was convicted i n 1990 and 1996 of second

- degree robbery ( Pen.

Code, § 211 1 ) . I n 200 3 he was again convicted of second

- degree robbery (the underlying

case) and sentenced to 25 years to life as a third

- strike offender. In A pril 2015, defendant

filed an application for resentencing under Proposition 47 (section 1170.18)

. 2 The trial

court denied the application

, stat ing “ [ d efendant’s] underlying convictions were for

[section] 211, and he therefore is not eligible for the relief he seeks. ” D efendant filed his

notice of appeal.

On appeal, a ppointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief in accordance

with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) requesting this court conduct an

independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues.

On October 30, 2015, we g a ve notice to defendant that his counsel had f iled a Wende

brief and defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief. Defendant

filed a letter brief in which he appears to contend there were errors in the proceedings

underlying the 2003 judgment and the judgments in other prior cases, and his appellate

c ounsel in this appeal provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to

advance those contentions.

Defendant did not appeal the underlying judgment or the judgments in his prior

cases. A cting on his own behalf, he filed an unambiguous n otice of appeal , referencing

the underlying trial court case number here , appealing “the erroneous denial of [his]

[P] ropos ition 47 motion [made] to the court.” “Our jurisdiction is ‘ limited in scope to the

notice of appeal and the judgment appealed from

. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” ( Ellis v. Ellis

(2015) 235 Cal.App. 4th 837 , 846; Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v.

Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App. 3d 35 , 46.) In addition, even had defendant appealed those

judgments, th e appeal would have been unt imely. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 ;

Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 660, 666

- 667. ) We therefore

do not address defendant’s contentions of error.

1 All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2 Section 1170.18 “was enacted as part of Proposition 47.” ( People v. Rivera (2015)

233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.)3

In addition to reviewing the matters raised in defendant’s letter brief, we have

made an independent examination of the entire record to determine if there are any other

arguable issues on appeal. Based on t hat review, we have determined there are no other

arguable issues. We are therefore satisfied that defendant ’ s counsel h as fully complied

with his responsibilities under Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436

.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KUMAR, J. 

We concur:

KRIEGLER, Acting P. J.

BAKER, J.

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

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.