Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FSB025013, Cara D. Hutson, Judge.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RICHLI, J.
I INTRODUCTION
An information filed on December 27, 1999, charged defendant and appellant Joel Bautista with one count of burglary under Penal Code section 459. On January 7, 2000, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge and was sentenced to two years in state prison.
On February 20, 2008, a motion was heard and denied asking the court to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b) (17(b)), and/or to dismiss the conviction under Penal Code section 1203.4 (1203.4). In so doing, the trial court stated: “Just to let Counsel know, I think it’s the state of the law that because [defendant] went to state prison and was not under probation supervision, that this Court has no authority upon which to grant the 1203.4. So I will allow Counsel to do the necessary research, but for this time being, [defendant], the Court will deny your request to reduce the matter pursuant to 17(b) and further dismiss the matter pursuant to Penal Code Section 1202.4 for the time being.”
On February 20, 2008, defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Because the facts underlying the initial guilty plea are not contested on appeal, they are not provided in this opinion.
After defendant appealed, and upon his 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting 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.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, Acting P. J., KING, J.