1 Filed 4/9/15 P. v. Nash CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JARVIN ONEAL NASH, Defendant and Appellant. E062644 (Super.Ct.No . FSB045154) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Sa n Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following his conviction by jury of attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459), 1 during which another person was pres ent, and findings by the trial court

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.2 that he had suffered two strike priors (§ 6 67, subds. (b)-(i)), defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. While serving th at term, defendant, in pro per, filed a petition for recall of his sentence pursuant to secti on 1170.126, which the trial court denied, finding that defendant was ineligible beca use his current conviction is for a serious felony. Defendant app eals from that order. Upon defendant’s request, this court appo inted counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the r ecord, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Ca l.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of th e facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an in dependent review of the record. We offered defendant an op portunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. In the brief before this court, counse l for defendant listed as potential arguable issues whether the trial court erred in concl uding that defendant was ineligible for recall of his sentence under section 1170.126 an d whether, in light of Proposition 47, defendant’s current conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor. In his brief, defendant asserts that the f acts surrounding his current offense justify his resentencing under section 1170.126 and unde r Proposition 47.
I SSUES AND D ISCUSSION Section 1170.126 provides, in pertinen t part, “(b) Any person serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed pursua nt to paragraph (2) of3 subdivision (e) of Section 667 . . . upon conviction . . . of a felony . . . that [is] not defined as serious . . . by subdivision (c ) . . . of Section 1192.7, may file a petition for a recall of sentence . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (e) An inmate is eligible for resentencing if: [¶] (1) The inmate is serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed pursuant to . . . subdivision (e) of Section 667 . . . for a conviction of a felony . . . that [is] not defined as serious . . . by subdivision (c) . . . of Section 1192.7.” Section 1192.7, subdivision (c) provides, in pertinent part, “A s used in this section, ‘serious felony’ means any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (18) burglary of the first degr ee . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than assault . . . .” Because defendant’s current offense was for attempted first degree burglary, the trial court did not err in concluding that he was ineligible for recall of his sentence under section 1170.126. Proposition 47, embodied, in part, in sec tion 1170.18, provides, as is pertinent here, “(a) A person currently serving a senten ce for a conviction . . . of a felony . . . who would have been guilty of a misd emeanor under the act . . . had this act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence . . . to request resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of th e Health and Safety Code, or Sections 459.5, 473, 476a, 490. 2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code, as those sections have been amended or added by this act.” None of those sections apply to the crime of first degree burglary, therefore, defendant is not e ligible for resentencing as a misdemeanant under section 1170.18.4 Given the foregoing, the facts surroundin g defendant’s current crime are irrelevant to the determination that he is ineligible for a recall of sentence under either sections
1170.126 or 1170.18. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have independently reviewed the re cord for potential error a nd find no arguable issues.
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur: McKINSTER J. KING J.