People v. Duchine CA3 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/21/15 P. v. Duchine CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (Sacramento)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C079298
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 12F03590)
    v.
    JOHN DUCHINE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    “On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe
    Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the
    next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015)
    
    233 Cal.App.4th 1085
    , 1089.) Proposition 47 created a resentencing provision, codified
    at Penal Code section 1170.18,1 which provides that a person currently serving a sentence
    for certain designated felonies may petition for recall of the sentence to reduce the felony
    1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    1
    to a misdemeanor. Defendant John Duchine appeals from an order denying his petition
    to reduce his commitment conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor.2
    Defendant’s petition was denied upon a determination that he was not eligible for
    relief because the commitment offense was possession of a controlled substance in prison
    (§ 4573.6), which is not among the eligible offenses listed in section 1170.18.
    Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an
    opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the
    record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a
    supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than
    30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
    Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court
    decision in Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
     [
    18 L.Ed.2d 493
    ] apply to an appeal
    from an order denying a petition brought pursuant to Proposition 47 remains an open
    question. Our Supreme Court has not spoken. The Anders/Wende procedures address
    appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent criminal defendant in the first appeal as
    a matter of right and courts have been loath to expand their application to other
    proceedings or appeals. (See Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 
    481 U.S. 551
     [
    95 L.Ed.2d 539
    ]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 
    40 Cal.4th 529
    ; In re Sade C. (1996) 
    13 Cal.4th 952
    ; People v. Serrano (2012) 
    211 Cal.App.4th 496
    ; People v. Dobson (2008)
    2 The petition makes passing reference to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act
    of 2012. Proposition 36 provides for the enactment of section 1170.126, and
    subdivision (a) of that statute expressly states: “The resentencing provisions under this
    section and related statutes are intended to apply exclusively to persons presently serving
    an indeterminate term of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of
    Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, whose sentence under
    this act would not have been an indeterminate life sentence.” Defendant’s determinate
    four-year term does not qualify as an indeterminate term of imprisonment.
    2
    
    161 Cal.App.4th 1422
    ; People v. Taylor (2008) 
    160 Cal.App.4th 304
    ; People v. Thurman
    (2007) 
    157 Cal.App.4th 36
    ; Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 
    78 Cal.App.4th 570
    .)
    Nonetheless, in the absence of Supreme Court authority to the contrary, we believe it
    prudent to adhere to Wende in the present case, where counsel has already undertaken to
    comply with Wende requirements and defendant has been afforded the opportunity to file
    a supplemental brief.
    Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find no arguable error that
    would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    RAYE           , P. J.
    We concur:
    BLEASE           , J.
    HOCH             , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C079298

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2015