People v. Zendejas CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 10/19/15 P. v. Zendejas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063433
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1405256)
EDGAR ZENDEJAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Pacheco,
Judge. Affirmed.
Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant Edgar Zendejas appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of
his two-year term for possessing methamphetamine for sale and for resentencing under
Penal Code section 1170.18.1 We find no error and affirm the order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On December 19, 2014, police on patrol at a park saw defendant and another
person sitting on their bicycles in the parking lot. As the patrol vehicle drove in the
direction of the two men, defendant looked at the vehicle and then pushed his bicycle
toward a tree. Defendant appeared to be hiding something behind the tree. The officers
found a container containing four separate baggies of methamphetamine, with a total
weight of 2.8 grams.
On December 22, 2014, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with
possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The People also
alleged that defendant had four prior felonies (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and that each of these
felonies resulted in a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subd. (b).
On January 5, 2015, defendant pled guilty to the possession for sale charge but did
not admit any of the allegations. Also on that date the trial court sentenced defendant, as
agreed, to two years in state prison.
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, entitled “the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act” (hereafter Proposition 47). It went into effect the next
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2
day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) As of its effective date, Proposition 47
classifies as misdemeanors certain drug- and theft-related offenses that previously were
felonies or “wobblers,” unless they were committed by certain ineligible defendants.
(§ 1170.18, subd. (a).)
On January 27, 2015, appellant filed a petition under Proposition 47 to recall his
sentence. On February 27, 2015, the trial court considered and denied defendant’s
petition, finding defendant did not satisfy the criteria in section 1170.18 and that
defendant was not eligible for resentencing.
On April 22, 2015, defendant appealed from the denial of his petition.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a
statement of the case and a summary of the facts and requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
3
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s Proposition 47 petition for recall and resentencing
is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4