People v. Cianci CA1/1

Filed 5/1/14 P. v. Cianci CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140221 v. ALLAN JOSEPH CIANCI, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC076123A) Defendant and Appellant.

Allan Joseph Cianci appeals from denial of a series of postconviction motions in general seeking modification of his state prison sentence. Appointed counsel has filed a brief explaining due process does not require Anders/Wende review.1 We agree and dismiss the appeal as abandoned in accordance with People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An information was filed on July 23, 2012, charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 6), and five misdemeanors: battery on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b); count 2); two counts of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 3 and 4); and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1; counts 5 and 7). It was further alleged defendant suffered one prior conviction prohibiting probation (Pen. 1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4)), two state prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). On March 19, 2013, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine and one count of resisting arrest. He admitted the prior strike conviction. Under the plea agreement, defendant was referred to probation with a promise he would receive no more than 32 months in state prison, and the court would consider defendant’s Romero2 motion. The court subsequently denied defendant’s Romero motion and sentenced him to the low term of 16 months on the possession for sale of methamphetamine offense, doubled pursuant to the strike prior conviction, for a total of 32 months in state prison. In a letter dated July 29, 2013, entitled “Request for Sentence Modification for a Chance to Save My Life,” defendant in pro. per. asked for a chance to attend a long-term drug rehabilitation program in lieu of state prison. The court thereafter replied to defendant advising him “by law a [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] sentence is not modifiable to a drug treatment program” and denied the request. The court suggested defendant “explore entering such a program” upon his release from prison. A little over a month later, defendant in pro. per. submitted another petition signed on September 5, 2013, entitled “Petition For Application For Goodtime, Worktime Credits That Was Waived By Three Judge Federal Court to Release Inmates.” He sought to have good time and work time credits applied retroactively, “Per The Three Judge Federal Court Panel who waived any restrictions on ‘such statutes’ to deny or limit such credits in order to allow prison population reduction as this overcrowded prison system violates the 8th Amend. Rights Preventing Adequate Medical and Mental Health Care.”3