1

Filed 9/30/13 P. v. Crabtree 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

REBECCA CRABTR EE,
Defendant and Appellant. E058848
(Super.Ct.No. FCF1291)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A.Smith,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appell ant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I NTRODUCTION
Defendant, Rebecca Crabtree, is serving 29 years in prison after a jury convicted

her in 2000 of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) 1 and found true
allegations that she person ally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd.
(b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).
In April 2013, defendant petitioned the superior court to recall her sentence under

section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that defendant’s
commitment offense, attempted murder, is a severe and violent felony that disqualifies
defendant from resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e), and that she was

not sentenced under the Three Strikes Law in the first place, having been sentenced to 9
years for the attempted murder and 20 years for the firearm enhancement.
This appeal followed.

D ISCUSSION
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. 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 case, a brief summary of the facts, and identi fying
one potential arguable issue: did the trial court err in denying defendant’s petition for

recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126?

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3

Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

she has done. Defen dant sets forth three grounds for appeal. First, defendant vaguely
asserts her counsel was ineffective based on her having been assigned three different
public defenders and having been coerced into signing a time waiver for the preliminary
hearing. Defe ndant also states the trial court violated her First Amendment rights by
imposing the maximum sentence. Finally, defendant argues the trial court misstated the
facts at sentencing and the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that could have been

used t o impeach the victim, that is, a medical report stating the victim had been drinking
and had a history of depression. None of these issues are cognizable in this appeal, which
is limited to issues related to the denial of defendant’s petition for recall o f sentence.

Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent
review of the record and find no arguable issues.

D ISPOSITION
The trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s petition for recall of resentence under

section 1170.12 6 is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST J.

KING J.