Filed 6/1/16 P. v. Rowland CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD RO WLAND,

Defendant and Appellant. B263543

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA137088)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvonne T.

Sanchez, Judge. Affirmed.

David Blake Chatfield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________2

Richard Ro w land petitioned on March 23, 2015 to recall his current felony

sentence for violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession

of a controlled substance, to request resentencing as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47,

the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18)

. 1 On April 9, 2015 the

trial court denied the petition, finding Rowland was ineligible for resentencing under

Proposition 47

. Rowland filed a timely notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent Rowland on appeal. After examination of the

record, counsel filed an o pening brief in which no issues were raised. On February 16

, 2016 we advised Rowland he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or

issues he wished us to consider. On March 7, 2016 the notice was returned by the

Folsom State Prison marked “Ret urn To Sender. Not D eliverable A s A ddressed. Unable

T o Forward.” Notations on the returned envelope indicate Rowland may have been

released on PRCS (post

- release community supervision). 2

Proposition 47 requires a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for

certain drug possession offenses and for petty theft, receiving stolen property and

forging/writing bad checks when the amount involved is $950 or less and requires

resentencing for defendant s currently serving felony sentences for the specified crimes

unless the trial court finds an unreasonable public safety risk. (See People v. Shabazz

(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 308 & fn. 2.)

Section 1170.18, subdivision (i), however, provides that pers ons previously

convicted of any of the offenses listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv)

, sometimes called “super strikes,” or for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender

1 All further sta tutory references are to this code.

2 When we appointed appellate counsel for Rowland, we directed Rowland “to keep the court informed of his/her mailing address at all times. If you move, you MUST notify the clerk of this court immediately; otherwise you may not receive important notices

con cerning your appeal.” Rowland has not provided any information regarding his current address after his apparent r elease from the Folsom State Prison.3

under section 290 are not eligible for resentencing. Among the “ super strike” offenses is

attempted murder ( §§ 187, 664). (See § 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(IV )

. ) Rowland was

convicted of attempted murder i n June 1994

. 3 Accordingly, the trial court correctly

concluded he was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Rowland’s appellate attorney

has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue ex ists.

( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118

- 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,

441

- 442.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

ZELON, J.

BLUMENFELD, J. *

3 Rowland

, who completed the for m Proposition 47 petition without the assistance of counsel, failed to l ist his prior felony convictions, as required, and declared, under penalty of perjury, that “none of my prior convictions disqualify me from eligibility for the ruling sought.”

* J udge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursu ant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.