Filed 2/1/16 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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



### THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAURICIO GONZALEZ

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 263801

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. VA076763 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J.

Higa, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant Mauricio Gonzalez appeals from an order dismissing his petition to

recall his sentence and for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes R eform

Act of 2012. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) 1 The order is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second degree robbery and

found to have suffered two prior s trike convictions within the meaning of sections 667,

subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and a prior prison

term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). He received a state prison

sentence of 30 years to life . He appealed from the judgment of conviction, which this

court affirmed in 20 05 . ( People v. Gonzalez ( Sept. 22 , 20 05 , B 177682 ) [nonpub. opn.].)

In November 2012, the voters adopted Proposition 36, which amended the Three

Strikes law by limiting the imposition of an indeterminate life s entence to those

defendants whose third felony is defined as serious or violent under sections 667.5 or

1192.7. The initiative allowed those serving a life sentence for a third felony that is not

defined by those sections as serious or violent to petition for a recall of sentence and

request resentencing. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).)

Defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing in October

201 4

. The trial court found him ineligible for resentencing because robbery is defined as

a vi olent felony by subdivision (c)(9) of section 667.5. His petition was denied with

prejudice, and this appeal followed.

Defendant’s attorney filed a Wende 2 brief, stating that he had thoroughly reviewed

the record to determine whether it contained any a rguable issues. We issued a letter

directing counsel to send the record and a copy of the opening brief to defendant, and

inviting defendant to submit a supplemental brief or letter. We received no response

from defendant.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.3

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with

his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000)

528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT T O BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

MANELLA, J.