Opinion
D071335
05-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELVIN SINGLETON, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD147179) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case, Kevin Singleton filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47, Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act) to reclassify his robbery conviction and two other convictions as misdemeanors. The court granted the petition in part, but denied it as to the robbery conviction, which is not eligible for reclassification under the statute. Thereafter, Singleton filed a request for hearing and appointment of counsel to pursue his claim that the robbery conviction (which is not a wobbler offense) should be reclassified. The court denied his request.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Singleton filed a notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Singleton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss Singleton's brief below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2000, Singleton was convicted of one count of robbery (§ 211). The facts of the conviction are not relevant to the legal issue raised by this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel has not identified any issue that would arguably support reversal of the trial court's decision in this case. Counsel recognizes a duty to inform the court of any possible issue that might support the appellant's claim for reversal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) On this record, however, it is plain that robbery under section 211 is not a listed offense in Proposition 47. In fact, robbery is not a wobbler offense, i.e., it does not have an alternative misdemeanor punishment. Thus, it can be determined as a matter of law that Singleton cannot properly seek reclassification of a nonreduceable felony. Accordingly, counsel could not identify any possible issue for consideration under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, because none exists.
Section 211 provides: "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear." --------
We have reviewed the entire record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
We have separately considered Singleton's supplemental brief. His brief contains a number of materials which are not relevant to his appeal. He addresses the denial of several habeas corpus petitions unrelated to his Proposition 47 issue. Indeed, Singleton's principal discussion relates to his 2014 Proposition 36 habeas corpus petition which was denied by the superior court based on the fact his robbery conviction made him ineligible for relief under section 1170.126. The denial of that habeas corpus petition is not before the court on this appeal. In any event, the denial of his various habeas corpus petitions provides no information relevant to the trial court's decision to deny relief under section 1170.18 and to deny his request for appointment of counsel and a hearing on his petition to reclassify his robbery conviction. Thus, Singleton's supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal of the orders at issue in this appeal. Our conclusion that no arguable issues for reversal are presented by this record remains unchanged.
Competent counsel has represented Singleton on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The orders denying Singleton's petition for reclassification under section 1170.18, and denying the request for counsel and hearing are affirmed.
/s/_________
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
McCONNELL, P. J. /s/_________
NARES, J.