Filed 11/21/23 P. v. Young CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERNEST YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

F085651

(Super. Ct. No. F21903955)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda S. 

Allen-Hill, Judge.

Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Ernest Young (appellant), who is serving a state prison term, filed a 

petition for resentencing and reduction of his two felony convictions to misdemeanors, 

based on Proposition 47 and Penal Code1section 1170.18. The trial court denied the 

petition and found he was statutorily ineligible for relief. On appeal, his appellate 

counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no 

issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. We reviewed the 

record and affirm. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2021, appellant pleaded no contest to two felony offenses: assault with a 

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1,

subd. (a)(2)), and admitted one strike prior conviction. He was sentenced to a stipulated 

second strike term of 10 years. 

On August 26, 2022, appellant filed a petition to reduce both his felony 

convictions to misdemeanors and for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18. 

On November 23, 2022, the trial court denied appellant’s petition and held he was 

ineligible for relief under section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) and (f). 

On appeal from the denial of his petition, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 

14 Cal.5th 216, which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the 

record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.

On August 2, 2023, this court sent a notice to appellant stating his appellate 

counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. 

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216 that indicated no arguable issues had been identified 

for appeal; that he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental letter or brief raising any 

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
3.

arguable issues he wanted this court to consider; and if he did not file a letter or brief this 

court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

Proposition 47 “makes certain drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, 

unless the offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had 

previously been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as 

either felonies or misdemeanors).” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 

1091.) Proposition 47 “also added ... section 1170.18, which permits those previously 

convicted of felony offenses that Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors to petition to 

have such felony convictions resentenced or redesignated as misdemeanors.” (People v.

Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 871, fn. omitted.)

Section 1170.18 does not include section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and 

section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2) as offenses that are subject to reduction and resentencing 

pursuant to Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f).) As such, defendant is statutorily 

ineligible for relief under section 1170.18, and the trial court correctly denied his petition.

After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or 

legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order of November 23, 2022, denying appellant’s petition, is 

affirmed.