1

Filed 11/6/15 P. v. Debruce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

TANYA ROCHELLE DEBRUCE, Defendant and Appellant. E063544
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1402818)

O P I N I O N

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez,
Judge. Affirmed.
Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for De fendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Tanya Rochelle Debruce pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine while in the Robert Presley Detention Center (count 1; Pen. Code,2

§ 4573.6) 1 and admitted an alle gation she had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667,
subds. (c), (e) (1) , 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Pursuant to the terms of her plea agreement, the
court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of four years ’ imprisonment.

After defendant filed the notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent

her . 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, setting forth a statement of the case , a

statement of the facts, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether section 1170.18 may apply to defendant’s conviction to reduce her offense from a felony
to a misdemeanor; and (2) whether, assuming section 1170.18 would not apply to reduce

defendant’s o ffense to a misdemeanor, such purportedly disparate treatment violates
constitutional principles of equal protection. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 5, 2014, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with
possession of met hamphetamine while in the Robert Presley Detention Center (count 1;
§ 4573.6) and alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c),
(e) (1) , 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On February 18,

2015 , defendant entered into a plea agreement with the People whereby she agreed to
plead guilty to the count 1 offense and admit the prior strike conviction. In return, the
People agreed to the imposition of the low term of two years on the count 1 offense,
doubled pursuant to the strike prior, and dismissal of the prior prison term allegation.

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

On the same date, the court asked defendant if she understood everything in her
plea forms. 2 She responded: “Yes. Four years and 85.” Defendant then entered the pl ea contemplated in the agreement. She admitted that on July 4, 2014 , she possessed
methamphetamine while in the Robert Presley Detention Center. On March 20, 2015, the
court sentenced defendant to four years ’ imprisonment. 3 The court dismissed the prior
prison term allegation.
On April 28, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal indicating she was appealing “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea ” and “ challenges the validity of the plea.” Defendant also checked a box indicatin g another basis for the plea: “I need this case to be reconsidered under Prop[osition] 47 to be reduced to a
misdemeanor from a felony charge .

. . .” Defendant requested a certificate of probable
cause asserting : “I want to be retried in court under th e [P]rop[osition] 47 law for this
charge to be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. Also on this case I was suppose[d]
to get [four] [years] at 80% not 85% .

. . .” The court denied the request for a certificate
of probable cause , noting “you do not n eed a certificate of probable cause to file for Prop[osition] 47 relief.”

II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

s he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we

2 At the same hearing, defendant entered guilty pleas in two additional cases.

3 At the same hearing, defendant entered a guilty plea in a fourth case.4

have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues

. (See People v. Delapena (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1428

- 1 4 29 [ n o violation of equal
protection to require sentenced defendant s to file a petition for relief under § 1 1 70.18 as
opposed to yet

- to

- be sentenced defendants who are not so required].)

III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

McKINSTER J.