People v. Reed

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD REED, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 25, 2016

B264766 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016)

Opinion

B264766

02-25-2016

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD REED, Defendant and Appellant.

Caneel C. Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LUI, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA383185) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie A. Swain, Judge. Affirmed. Caneel C. Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

In 2011 Reginald Reed was convicted of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) and making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) and sentenced to nine years in prison. In May of 2015, he filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted as part of Proposition 47. The trial court denied that petition, noting that defendant's commitment offenses were ineligible for relief under Proposition 47.

Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On December 10, 2015, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 is limited to convictions for the offenses specified therein, in subdivision (a). Defendant's commitment offenses are not within the scope of that section.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, J. We concur:

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

JOHNSON, J.