Filed 10/28/22 P. v. Strain CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAURICE STRAIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B319679, B319695

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. Nos. TA007742,

 TA049080)

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Tammy Chung Ryu and Pat Connolly, Judges. 

Dismissed. 

Stanley Dale Radtke, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

Defendant Maurice Strain filed two appeals from orders

denying his requests for postconviction relief under 

Proposition 47 and Penal Code1 section 1170.18. His appointed 

appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Serrano

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) identifying no arguable 

issues, and defendant filed no supplemental brief. We dismiss 

the appeals.

BACKGROUND

1. Case No. TA007742

On August 30, 1990, defendant was convicted in case No. 

TA007742 of second degree robbery (§ 211). He was sentenced to 

four years in prison. 

In 2021, defendant applied under section 1170.18 to have 

his conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor. The trial court 

denied the application, finding section 1170.18 did not apply to 

the crime for which defendant was convicted. 

The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s two motions for 

reconsideration, again finding section 1170.18 did not apply to his 

robbery conviction. 

2. Case No. TA049080

On February 25, 1998, defendant was convicted in case No. 

TA049080 of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211) and 

assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant 

was sentenced to 40 years to life. 

In 2022, defendant applied under section 1170.18 to have 

the robbery conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. The trial court 

1 Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
3

denied the application, finding section 11780.18 did not apply to 

defendant’s robbery conviction. 

3. Appeals

Defendant appealed from the denials of his applications in 

both case Nos. TA007742 and TA049080. We consolidated the 

appeals for purposes of briefing, oral argument, and decision. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief 

identifying no issues and requesting that we follow the 

procedures set forth in Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496. We 

informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. He 

did not do so.

When a defendant appeals from a denial of postconviction 

relief, and appointed counsel files a brief raising no issues, we 

are not obligated to review the record independently to determine 

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 

Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039, review granted Oct. 14, 

2020, S264278.) The defendant has a right, however, to file a 

supplemental brief. (Ibid.) If the defendant does not file a 

supplemental brief, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

(Id. at pp. 1039–1040, review granted.) 

These appeals arise from postconviction proceedings in 

which defendant sought to reclassify his convictions under 

Proposition 47 and section 1170.18. Counsel’s brief identified 

no appealable issues, and defendant did not file a supplemental 

brief in either appeal. Accordingly, we deem the appeals

abandoned.

Assuming arguendo we are required to review the full 

record to determine if any arguable issues exist, as set forth in 
4

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have done so and find 

no arguable issue. Appointed counsel has fully complied with 

counsel’s responsibilities and no arguable issue exists. (People v.

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at

pp. 441–442.)

DISPOSITION

The appeals are dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

CHANEY, J.