Filed 9/29/16 P. v. Washington CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TROY WASHI NGTON

,

Defendant a nd Appellant. B271719

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. B A 329354 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth K. Horowitz, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant

.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________2

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant Troy Washington’s motion for

modification of his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). (All
statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified .)

An information filed on November 26, 2007, charged defendant with second
degree robbery . The information also alleged one prior seri ous or v iolent felony

conviction ( c ase No. PA015697 in 1994, for battery with serious bodily injury ) under

section 1170.12, subd ivisions (a) through (d) and section 667, subdivisions (b)
through (i) ; a prior serious felony conviction (the same 1994 convict ion) under section

667, subdivision (a)(1); and five prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b) . The

five prison priors included a 2002 conviction (c ase No. BA224892) for a felony violation
of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (possession of a controlled
substance).
A jury convicted d efendant of the robbery

. He admitted the allegations that he
suffered the prior 1994 conviction in c ase No. PA015697 , and the court found th ose allegations true

. On April 23, 2008, the court sen tenced defendant to 11 years in state prison : the
middle term of three years for the robbery , doubled for the prior serious and/or violent
felony ( case No. PA015697) under sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a ) through ( d) and
667, subdivisions (b ) through ( i ), plus a consecutive five

- year enhancement for the prior
serious felony ( case No. PA015697) under section 667, subdivision (a) (1)

. Effective November 5 , 2014, the voters passed Proposition 47, making certain
drug and theft offenses mis demeanors instead o f felonies, including specified violations
of Health and Safety Code section 11350. Proposition 47 also allows a person who has
completed his or her sentence for a felony that would have been a misdemeanor under
Proposition 47 to file an application to ha ve the felony conviction designated as a

misdemeanor . (§ 1170.18, subd. (f).)
On August 11, 2015, defendant filed a motion under Proposition 47 to redesignate
his 2002 felony conviction for unlawful drug possession as a misdemeanor. On3

September 29, 2015 , the trial court found defendant’s application satisfied the relevant
criteria, and designated the 2002 felony drug possession offense as a misdemeanor.
Then, on February 22, 2016, defendant filed a “motion for modification of

sentence,” identifying both this case (the robbery) and the 2002 case (the drug
possession). Defendant characterized his motion as a motion “to complete modification
order already granted pursuant to Prop. 47.” Defendant asked the court to resentence him
“to modify the current ter m also under BA329354 [ ( this case ) ] to strike also the 1 year
enhancement that was imposed pursuant to the prior BA224892 conviction that has since

been modified to a misdemeanor.” 1

The trial court denied defendant’s motion, ruling that “ defendant’s BA2248 92 1

- year prior [ ( the 2002 drug possession ) ] was not included in his sentencing in this case
(BA329354

- 01).”

Defendant filed a timely appeal.

De fendant’s appointed counsel filed a Wende brief ( People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436) requesting our in d epe ndent review of the record. A declaration from

c ounsel stated that she had written to defendant explaining her evaluation of the record

and her intent to fil e a Wende brief , and informed him of his r ight to file a supplemental

brief and to re lieve her as counsel. Counsel also sent defendant the transcript of the
record on appeal and a copy of her Wende brief. No supplemental brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record on appeal . The record shows no error by the trial
court. The April 23, 2008 min ute order for defendant’s sentencing hearing shows that the

1 Defendant also asked the trial court “ to amend movant [ ’ ] s abs tract of judgment under Case No# BA224892 [ ( the 2002 drug possession case ) ] to reflect that the 1 year enhancement imposed in Case No# B A224892 has been stricken on the ground that a 1 year enhancement cannot as a matter of law be imposed for a misdemeanor conviction.” While the meaning of defendant’s request is unclear, the trial court’s September 29, 2015 minute order demonstrates that defendant’s felony conviction in case No. BA224892 has been designated a misdemeanor conviction, and the law provides that is so “for all purposes ” except specified laws relating to firearms. (§ 1170.18, subd. (k).) No more is necessary.4

only enhancements imposed were in connection with defendant’s prior conviction in
1994 for battery with serious bodily injury ( c ase No. PA015697).

In short, w e are satisfied that defendant’s app ointed counsel has fully complied

with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, 109

- 110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

T he trial court’s order is affirmed.

GRIMES , J

. WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting , P. J.

FLIER , J.