Opinion
C085010
01-26-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAOUL LEYVA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. SF120204A, STKCRFE20120007556)
Appointed counsel for defendant Raoul Leyva asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
BACKGROUND
Defendant was serving a 13-year six-month prison term for attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 192, subd. (a)) and corporal injury to a cohabitant causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subds. (b), (e)). He filed a motion captioned, "Petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.18(f) Proposition 57)" and asked that his convictions be reduced to misdemeanors under Penal Code section 1170.18. The trial court summarily denied the request. Defendant timely appealed.
Defendant likely meant to refer to Proposition 47. Proposition 57 added section 32 to article I of the California Constitution, which provides: "Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, subd. (a)(1); People v. Mendoza (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 327, 343-344, review granted on Proposition 57 grounds, July 12, 2017, S241647.) --------
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
DUARTE, J.