Opinion
E068222
08-25-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY JOHN ALVARADO, Defendant and Appellant.
Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF147822) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Gary John Alvarado, filed a request for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, which the court denied. After defendant filed a notice of appeal and counsel from Appellate Defenders, Inc. filed an amended notice of appeal, 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 identifying two potentially arguable issues: whether defendant was denied equal protection under the law because some forgery offenses qualify for Penal Code section 1170.18 resentencing while the offense for which defendant stands convicted does not; and whether, as a policy matter, defendant's offense of forgery of a Department of Motor Vehicle operating permit should qualify for resentencing because it is "a lesser social evil than forgery of pretty much any financial instrument." We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2009, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with forgery of a Department of Motor Vehicle operating permit (count 7; Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)), felony possession of methamphetamine (count 8; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (count 9; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). On February 10, 2009, defendant pled guilty to forgery (count 7; Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)) as part of a plea agreement. In return, the court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months' incarceration, concurrent to the sentence in the other case, and dismissed the remaining charges.
The People charged defendant along with two other defendants in the complaint. One of the other defendants was charged in counts 1 through 6.
The plea agreement is not contained in the record on appeal. Defendant contemporaneously pled guilty in another case to running a chop shop and admitted suffering two prior prison terms.
Which, in turn, was to run concurrent to the sentence imposed in an unspecified third case. --------
On February 7, 2017, defendant filed a petition for resentencing of his forgery conviction. In a response dated February 15, 2017, the People noted the offense for which defendant stood convicted did not qualify for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. On March 3, 2017, the court denied the petition, noting defendant's offense did not qualify for resentencing.
II. DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.