People v. Mena CA2/6

Filed 1/19/16 P. v. Mena CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B264389 (Super. Ct. No. F278034001) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

SALVADOR MENA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Salvador Mena was convicted in 1999 of knowingly possessing controlled substances in prison or jail in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6.1 In 2015, appellant petitioned for reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f). The prosecution objected to the petition, arguing that appellant was not eligible for the requested relief because a violation of section 4573.6 is not a qualifying offense under section 1170.18, and because he has disqualifying prior convictions for lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)). (See § 1170.18, subd. (i).) The trial court agreed with the prosecution. It denied the petition on the basis that the offense for violating section 4573.6. is not eligible for reduction under

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

section 1170.18. It also determined that appellant is ineligible for the requested relief because he has at least one "prior conviction[] for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of [s]ection 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of [s]ection 290." (§ 1170.18, subd. (i).) Appellant timely appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On October 13, 2015, we notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.2 (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.