The People v. Crabtree CA4/2 ( 2013 )

Filed 9/30/13 P. v. Crabtree 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E058848
v. (Super.Ct.No. FCF1291)
REBECCA CRABTREE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A.Smith,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant, Rebecca Crabtree, is serving 29 years in prison after a jury convicted
her in 2000 of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a))1 and found true
allegations that she personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd.
(b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).
In April 2013, defendant petitioned the superior court to recall her sentence under
section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that defendant’s
commitment offense, attempted murder, is a severe and violent felony that disqualifies
defendant from resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e), and that she was
not sentenced under the Three Strikes Law in the first place, having been sentenced to 9
years for the attempted murder and 20 years for the firearm enhancement.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. 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 [87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493], setting forth a statement of the case, a brief summary of the facts, and identifying
one potential arguable issue: did the trial court err in denying defendant’s petition for
recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126?
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
she has done. Defendant sets forth three grounds for appeal. First, defendant vaguely
asserts her counsel was ineffective based on her having been assigned three different
public defenders and having been coerced into signing a time waiver for the preliminary
hearing. Defendant also states the trial court violated her First Amendment rights by
imposing the maximum sentence. Finally, defendant argues the trial court misstated the
facts at sentencing and the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that could have been
used to impeach the victim, that is, a medical report stating the victim had been drinking
and had a history of depression. None of these issues are cognizable in this appeal, which
is limited to issues related to the denial of defendant’s petition for recall of sentence.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have conducted an independent
review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s petition for recall of resentence under
section 1170.126 is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
KING
J.
3