California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 2015 No. E062787Unpublished
Filed 7/24/15 P. v. Hove CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E062787
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1402020)
LISA LYNNE HOVE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Brian S.
McCarville, Judge. Affirmed.
Lisa Lynne Hove, in pro. per.; and Patrick M. Ford, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 5, 2014, in San Bernardino Superior Court case No. FWV1402020,
defendant and appellant Lisa Lynne Hove pled no contest to one count of violating
Health and Safety Code section 11352 (sale of a controlled substance). Pursuant to the 1
plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in county prison—a
middle term of four years as to the substantive offense and three years additional,
Code, §§ 11357, subd. (a), 11377, subds. (a), (b).) The initiative became effective on
November 5, 2014. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a) [“an initiative statute or
referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise”].)
When assessing a claim under Proposition 47 on appeal, the first determination is
whether the defendant was convicted of a felony offense that qualifies for misdemeanor
sentencing. Here, defendant was convicted of sale of a controlled substance, to wit,
3
cocaine, under Health and Safety Code section 11352. Section 11352 was not amended
by Proposition 47. Hence, defendant’s conviction is ineligible for resentencing under
Proposition 47. Defendant’s claim, therefore, is without merit.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
KING J.
4
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction for the sale of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11352 is ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 because that statute was not amended by the initiative.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition to recall her sentence under Proposition 47.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Section 11352 was not amended by Proposition 47. Hence, defendant’s conviction is ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”