Court Opinion

ID: 9901420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 19:02:17.101948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.549936
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/21/23 P. v. Young CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085651
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F21903955)
                    v.

    ERNEST YOUNG,                                                                         OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda S.
Allen-Hill, Judge.
         Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
                                    INTRODUCTION
       Appellant Ernest Young (appellant), who is serving a state prison term, filed a
petition for resentencing and reduction of his two felony convictions to misdemeanors,
based on Proposition 47 and Penal Code1 section 1170.18. The trial court denied the
petition and found he was statutorily ineligible for relief. On appeal, his appellate
counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no
issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. We reviewed the
record and affirm.
                           PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In 2021, appellant pleaded no contest to two felony offenses: assault with a
deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1,
subd. (a)(2)), and admitted one strike prior conviction. He was sentenced to a stipulated
second strike term of 10 years.
       On August 26, 2022, appellant filed a petition to reduce both his felony
convictions to misdemeanors and for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18.
       On November 23, 2022, the trial court denied appellant’s petition and held he was
ineligible for relief under section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) and (f).
       On appeal from the denial of his petition, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this
court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the
record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.
       On August 2, 2023, this court sent a notice to appellant stating his appellate
counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216 that indicated no arguable issues had been identified
for appeal; that he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental letter or brief raising any

1      All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

                                              2.
arguable issues he wanted this court to consider; and if he did not file a letter or brief this
court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Proposition 47 “makes certain drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors,
unless the offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had
previously been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as
either felonies or misdemeanors).” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085,
1091.) Proposition 47 “also added ... section 1170.18, which permits those previously
convicted of felony offenses that Proposition 47 reduced to misdemeanors to petition to
have such felony convictions resentenced or redesignated as misdemeanors.” (People v.
Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 871, fn. omitted.)
       Section 1170.18 does not include section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and
section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2) as offenses that are subject to reduction and resentencing
pursuant to Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (f).) As such, defendant is statutorily
ineligible for relief under section 1170.18, and the trial court correctly denied his petition.
       After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order of November 23, 2022, denying appellant’s petition, is
affirmed.

                                              3.