Filed 7/24/14 P. v. Ridge CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and pa rties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for pu blication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered publi shed for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
JAMES D. RIDGE,
Defendant and Appellant. B255362
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA040116)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________ _______________2 Defendant James D. Ridge appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of his sentence pursuant to Penal Code secti on 1170.126, added by Proposition 36, the
Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. We concl ude defendant is ineligible for resentencing under the statute because one of his prio r convictions was for a violent felony.
BACKGROUND In 1997, defendant was convicted of po ssession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to a third strike term of 25 years to life. On June 19, 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence pursuant to
Penal Code section 1170.126, 1 alleging his commitment offense was not a serious or violent felony. The trial court denied the petition, explaining one of defendant’s prior
convictions was for forcible rape (§ 261(2)), which is a di squalifying offense pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv)(I) and ma de defendant ineligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1170 .126, subdivision (e)(3). Defendant filed a timely appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. After examination of the record, counsel filed an ope ning brief raising no i ssues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On May 29, 2014, we sent letters to defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to forward the appellate record to defendant and advi sing defendant that within 30 days he could personally su bmit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date he has not responded.
DISCUSSION 1. Appealability Proposition 36, known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, was approved on November 6, 2012, and went in to effect the next day. It amended sections 667 and
1170.12 so that an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison is applied only where

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 the third strike offense is a serious or violen t felony or the prosec ution pleads and proves an enumerated factor. (§§ 667, su bd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.1 2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) Proposition 36 also created section 1170. 126, which provides a procedure for resentencing “persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment” under
the “Three Strikes” law “whose sentence under this act would not have been an
indeterminate life sentence.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (a).) Such a person may file a petition
to recall his or her sentence and be sentenced as a second strike o ffender. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) An inmate is eligib le for such resentencing if none of his or her commitment
offenses constituted serious or violent felonies . (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).) The statute does
not address review of a trial court’s deni al of a petition filed pursuant to section
1170.126.
In People v. Hurtado (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 941, 945 (rev. granted July 31, 2013) we held that a trial court’s order denying a section 1170. 126 petition to recall a sentence is appealable. Our Supreme Court gr anted review of that and another opinion, Teal v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 308, 310 (rev. granted July 31, 2013), to determine whether such an order is appealable. Until the Supreme Court instructs otherwis e, we will continue to treat a trial court’s ruling on a petition to re call a sentence as appealable. 2. Defendant’s disqualifying conviction On February 18, 1988, defendant was convic ted of forcible rape, a violent felony. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(3).) A person who has su ffered a prior violent felony conviction is ineligible for resentencing. (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(I).) Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant’s petition to recall his sentence.4 DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

MILLER, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Cour t, assigned by the Ch ief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.