File

File 4/16/15 P. v. Marquez CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B258532

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA020076) v.

GILBERT MARQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Following a 1995 jury trial, defendant and appellant, Gilbert Marquez, was found guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 During trial, Marquez admitted having suffered prior convictions that made him eligible for sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Marquez to a total term of 25 years to life in state prison. (The judgment was affirmed on appeal in People v. Marquez (Nov. 5, 1996, B094020) [nonpub. opn.]). On July 29, 2013, acting in propria persona, Marquez filed a “petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36.”2 On June 26, 2014, the trial court denied the petition with prejudice on the ground Marquez was ineligible for resentencing because one of his prior convictions had been for forcible oral copulation (§ 288a). Marquez timely appealed from the order of denial.3 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to defendant, and notified defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Marquez has not filed a supplemental brief. We have examined the entire record and determined that, as the trial court ruled, because one of Marquez’s prior convictions was for forcible oral copulation he is not eligible for a reduction of his sentence under section 1170.126. As we explained in People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279: “On November 6, 2012, voters approved Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). Under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i),