Opinion
E058354
2013-09-12
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GILBERT EUGENE DAVIDSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick E. DuNah, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. FSB041285)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Gilbert Eugene Davidson appeals after the trial court denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2012)). Defendant filed a notice of appeal on March 13, 2013. We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2006, defendant was convicted of first degree burglary. (§ 459.) The trial court found that defendant had two strike priors. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i).) On January 8, 2007, the court sentenced him to state prison for 25 years to life.
On February 11, 2013, defendant filed an in pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.126. The court denied the petition since defendant's current conviction was for a serious offense, which made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).)
ANALYSIS
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 statement of the facts, and identifying one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's petition for resentencing under section 1170.126.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. 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 judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur: KING
J.
CODRINGTON
J.