Filed 2/3/16 P. v. Hicks CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GEORGE EDWARD HICKS,

Defendant and Appellant. B264688

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA223240 )

THE COURT: *

Defendant and appellant George Edward Hicks (defendant) appeals from an order

denying h is petition for resentencing under the provisi ons of Proposition 47 which reduce

some felony theft offenses to misdemeanors. H is appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), raising no issues. On November 2

, 2015, we notified defendant of his counsel’s br ief and gave h im leave to file, within 30

days, h is own brief or letter s tating any grounds or argument he might wish to have

considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We

have reviewed the entire record, including the augmented clerk’s transcript, and finding

no arguable issues, affirm the order.

* ASHMANN

- GERST, Acting P .J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.2

In January 2001, defendant was convicted of second degree burglary in violation

of Penal Code section 459. 1 In February 2015, after the passage of Proposition 47,

defenda nt filed a petition for recall of h is sentence and reduction of his conviction to a

misdemeanor. 2 (See §§ 1170.18 ; 459.5 .) The People opposed the petition , alleging that

defendant was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief on the ground that in 2005, defen dant

had been convicted of murder, in violation of section 187, in Los Angeles Superior Court

case No. BA275712. On April 16, 2015, the trial court denied the petition upon finding

that defendant was ineligible for the reasons stated in the People’s oppos ition, in that

defendant had a conviction for an offense listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv).

(See § 1170.18, subd. (i).) 3 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order.

We have examined the entire record a nd are satisfied that def endant’ s attorney has

fully complied with h is responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude

that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’ s compliance with the Wende procedure and our

review of the record, received adequate and effective appe llate review of the judgment

entered against h im in this case. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v.

Kelly (2006) 4 0 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

2 Defendant’s 200 3 conviction of petty theft with a prior in violation of section 666

, in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. V A 074045

, was the subject of another Proposition 47 p etition, the denial of which we affirmed in People v. Hicks (Jan. 20, 2016, B 264512 [nonpub. opn

. ].)

3 We take judicial notice of the abstract of judgment for Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA27512, reprod uced in the augmented clerk’s transcript filed October 19,

2015.