Opinion
D075925
09-20-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD COLLAZO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Jay Moller, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCS293925) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lorna Alksne, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In June 2017, Richard Collazo pleaded guilty to one count of importing a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a drug prior (Health and Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a nine year sentence. Collazo was sentenced to a nine-year term as agreed in the plea bargain. Apparently, Collazo did not appeal from that judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
In April 2019, Collazo filed a petition under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to reduce his felony conviction in this case to a misdemeanor. The trial court determined the offense in Health and Safety Code section 11352, subd. (a) is not eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.
Collazo filed a timely notice of appeal from the order filed April 24, 2019, denying Collazo's petition.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Collazo the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to any issue that might arise from the appeal of the denial of the petition under section 1170.18. We will not include the facts in this discussion.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is from the denial of the 2019 petition to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. The validity of the 2017 judgment is not before us.
As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to review the record for error.
To assist this court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified the following possible issues he considered in preparing the brief in this case: 1) In the appeal from the denial of a petition under section 1170.18 in this case, can the court consider the validity of the drug prior enhancement in light of the 2018 amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2; 2) may the 2018 amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 be applied to Collazo's final 2017 judgment; and 3) if the 2018 amendment could be considered on this appeal, does the trial court have jurisdiction to alter the plea agreement between the parties for a stipulated sentence.
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Collazo on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. AARON, J.