People v. Dison CA4/2 ( 2016 )

Filed 2/26/16 P. v. Dison 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E064827
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB14308)
DONALD RAY DISON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant Donald Ray Dison appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce
his robbery conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.1 We
affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 17, 1997, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with
robbery (§ 211) and alleging defendant personally used a handgun and a sawed-off
shotgun. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) On July 1, 1997, defendant pled guilty to count one and
admitted the gun enhancement. On July 29, 1997, the trial court sentenced him as agreed
to a total of seven years in prison – the middle term of three years for the robbery plus a
consecutive lower term of four years for the gun enhancement.
On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, and it went into effect the
next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) “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 created a new
resentencing provision: section 1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person ‘currently
serving’ a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
47, may petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with
the statutes that were added or amended by Proposition 47.” (Id. at p. 1092.)
On August 14, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section
1170.18. At a hearing on October 26, 2015, the court determined that defendant’s charge
did not qualify for relief under Proposition 47 and denied the petition.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 one potential
arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant’s petition for resentencing
under Proposition 47. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the
entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
4