Opinion
C079846
01-12-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT MYERS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 05F11355)
Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Scott Myers 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 affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of defendant's case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In February 2006, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to a three-year term, and imposed a restitution fine of $600. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
At the time of his plea, possession of methamphetamine was a felony offense. In November 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, which among other things, reduced the possession conviction to a misdemeanor offense. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) In January 2015, defendant petitioned the trial court, requesting his possession conviction be redesignated as a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. The trial court granted this petition.
In May 2015, defendant requested the trial court reduce his restitution fine "to a lower dollar amount, thus more accurately to reflect a fine imposed pursuant to a misdemeanor conviction." The trial court denied the request, as misdemeanor restitution fines have a maximum of $1,000.
Defendant appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets 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 is affirmed.
BUTZ, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. MAURO, J.